Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Same-sex Couples: Insemination Services

Margaret Ferrier: What assessment she has made of the ability of same-sex couples to access insemination services in the UK.

Helen Whately: Regulation of fertility treatment services is UK-wide, but policy is devolved. In England, decisions about local fertility services are determined by clinical commissioning groups, taking account of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, which include provision for same-sex female couples.

Margaret Ferrier: At present, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority guidance largely prohibits supplying sperm for insemination at home. Same-sex couples who are trying to get pregnant have few options via the NHS other than to access insemination services from a registered UK clinic. That means that couples who live further away from such clinics face further costs in their aspiration to start a family. Will the Minister, working with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the HFEA, explore ways in which this issue could be mitigated?

Helen Whately: On the question about the delivery of sperm to residential addresses, that can be done across the UK, but the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority advises against it because the origin of the sample and whether it is undamaged cannot be guaranteed. Undergoing treatment at a licensed UK clinic provides the donor and the patient with legal certainty about their parental status and their future responsibilities, but I am very happy to take up the hon. Lady’s question further with the Minister for Innovation, as this sits in his portfolio.

Covid-19: Female Employment

Mims Davies: The latest Office for National Statistics official statistics show the female employment rate at 71.8% at the end of January 2021. The Government recognise that times are hard for many women and men, which is why we have extended the furlough scheme until September, alongside new measures in our plan for jobs, such as our £2 billion kickstart scheme and the restart programme, which launches this summer.

Lindsay Hoyle: Question 2 is withdrawn, so we now go to Kirsten Oswald.

Kirsten Oswald: Covid forced short-term modifications to working practices, which demonstrate that change is possible, but proactive steps are needed to secure long-term improvements in flexible working to support the work and caring responsibilities of women in particular. Does the Minister agree that flexibility should be available from day one of a new job rather than being a possibility six months in, will she ensure that the forthcoming employment Bill provides for that, and will she confirm that that Bill will be in the Queen’s Speech?

Mims Davies: The hon. Lady raises something really important. At the Department for Work and Pensions we have been incredibly flexible with our team, and they have been incredibly flexible as a result, so I absolutely agree that flexibility is really important and will be keenly supporting changes to make sure that more women are part of the workforce. It is pleasing that, compared with men’s, the fall in women’s employment has been better through the covid pandemic. As the UK Government, we want to do as much as we can to support women to progress and thrive in the workplace or, indeed, working at home more flexibly.

UK’s G7 Presidency: Role of Women

Julie Marson: What steps the Government are taking to promote the role of women during the UK’s G7 presidency.

Elizabeth Truss: As part of the G7, we will be hosting the gender equality advisory council. Led by Sarah Sands, it will help women build back better across the world, including on ending violence against women, women’s economic empowerment, and education for women and girls.

Julie Marson: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. Does she agree that flexible working is key, not just to open up more opportunities for more people but to address the UK’s perennial productivity puzzle?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right: flexible working should be the standard offer from employers. Recent Government Equalities Office research shows that there are 30% more applicants where jobs are advertised as flexible. That particularly brings benefits to women and those who live outside the major cities, and it can help us level up our country and make it more productive.

Safer Streets for Women

Simon Fell: What steps she is taking to ensure that good practice on making streets safer for women is shared.

Kemi Badenoch: The tragic death of Sarah Everard has reminded us that we need to work together to ensure women do not feel at risk of harm on our streets. Since this senseless tragedy, we have taken immediate action by more than doubling the safer streets fund and building on what works by supporting measures such as better lighting and CCTV. The Minister for Crime and Policing will also hold a summit with police, the violence against women and girls sector, and industry representatives from the night-time economy on preparations to protect women as pandemic restrictions lift.

Simon Fell: I thank the Minister for her response. Following that tragic case, a good number of my constituents have been in touch with their concerns over whether their local area is safe. One of them, Courtney Beech, who is an outreach worker for Drop Zone in Barrow, is concerned about the lack of lighting in local parks and the cemetery. What efforts are the Government making to ensure that good practice is being shared with local authorities and other local organisations to keep women feeling safe and secure, especially at night time?

Kemi Badenoch: I share my hon. Friend’s concern. No one should feel unsafe walking on the street, least of all those who are doing valuable work in the community like Drop Zone. I hope he can reassure his constituents of the Government’s commitment to this issue. The safer streets fund has been more than doubled so it can support interventions such as street lighting and CCTV, which will make people feel safer, and they are the responsibility of local authorities.

Caroline Nokes: In order to make the streets safer for women, we must tackle the culture underpinning male violence. Does my hon. Friend agree with the conclusion of the February 2020 report of the Government Equalities Office that the use of pornography is an important contributing factor to harmful sexual behaviours? If so, how will she make sure that the Government emphasis is not simply on street lights, but also on the causes of male violence against women?

Kemi Badenoch: I think I can certainly say that I personally agree with my right hon. Friend. I do know that these issues have been looked at by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). She is not here today, unfortunately, but she has been looking into this issue and I will follow it up with her to provide a more comprehensive response to my right hon. Friend’s question.

Female Participation in STEM

Paul Howell: What steps she is taking to promote female participation in STEM.

Peter Aldous: What steps she is taking to promote female participation in STEM.

Vicky Ford: Science and technology will drive our country’s future and women are brilliant at STEM— science, technology, engineering and maths. There are now more girls taking chemistry and biology at A-level than boys, but we need to continue to make progress in other subjects. Initiatives such as T-levels provide an excellent opportunity for girls interested in STEM.

Paul Howell: Could I ask the Minister to encourage young women to utilise options like the South Durham University Technical College in Newton Aycliffe, where every one of last year’s students got an outcome they wanted, whether it was a job or further education? The UTC is supported by companies such as Hitachi and Gestamp, and that can create great STEM-based career opportunities. However, currently only about 20% of the students are female. Does she agree with me that more should consider this educational option? The next time she is in the north-east, will she come to see for herself the opportunities that are being created,?

Vicky Ford: I thank my hon. Friend for championing women in STEM. I congratulate the UTC in Newton Aycliffe for helping women to gain access to prestigious engineering jobs and higher technical opportunities. It is great to see more women taking up subjects such as engineering, but we would like to see more. A really proper and meaningful conversation with a woman role model who has already broken through STEM barriers can inspire girls and young women to enter STEM careers. Companies, such as those he mentions, have an important role in that.

Peter Aldous: I welcome the Minister’s reply. Participation in STEM can lead to exciting career opportunities in such sectors as renewable energy, but to ensure that young women have every opportunity to pursue their ambitions there must be a career-long pathway that enables them to realise their full potential. That should include fair recruitment processes, the promotion of alumni networks that ensure skill retention and the development of retention programmes. I would welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend that she is liaising with her ministerial colleagues to put in place a route map that includes such staging posts.

Vicky Ford: It is really positive that we have more women studying to become doctors and that four out of five students studying to become vets are women, but it is less good that only one in five engineering students are women. Initiatives such as Tomorrow’s Engineers Code, which was launched by EngineeringUK, is bringing together Government, business and academia to increase the number and diversity of young people pursuing engineering codes. As one of many Government organisations who have signed the code, we have pledged to work with the engineering community to improve quality targeting, inclusivity and reach of engineering activities.

Covid-19: Disabled People

Debbie Abrahams: What steps the Government are taking to help protect disabled people from the effects of the covid-19 outbreak.

Mims Davies: The Government are committed to supporting disabled people affected by the covid-19 outbreak. As part of Access to Work, we have introduced a more blended offer to help disabled people find and stay in work, including prioritising applications from disabled people in the clinically extremely vulnerable group.

Debbie Abrahams: The UK’s high and unequal covid death toll includes disabled people, who account for six out of 10 covid deaths. Last month’s Office for National Statistics data showed that both disabled men and women are more than three times more likely to die if they contract covid than non-disabled people. Even when we adjust for various factors including age or pre-existing health conditions, there is still an additional covid risk associated with disability. So I repeat my question from last June: what assessment have the Government undertaken of the covid deaths of working-age disabled social security claimants? Given their additional risk, what are the Government doing to protect them?

Mims Davies: I know that the hon. Lady is very passionate about making sure that anybody with barriers, anybody impacted on by this pandemic, is absolutely supported, and that is something that we have been doing at DWP. Through our Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, we are listening to and engaging with charities and hearing from those people who are working, those with learning disabilities, autistic people, and people with complex needs. Of course, this is an incredibly worrying time for people with disabilities. The Minister is looking at this very carefully and will keep it under review.

Conversion Therapy

John Lamont: What steps she is taking to ban conversion therapy.

Michael Fabricant: What steps she is taking to ban conversion therapy; and if she will make a statement.

Rupa Huq: What recent progress she has made on plans to ban conversion therapy.

Elizabeth Truss: I am committed to banning conversion therapy. It is an abhorrent practice and I will shortly be bringing forward plans to do just that.

John Lamont: I am grateful for that response. I am absolutely clear that this practice has no place in a civilised society. Being from the LGBT+ community is not an illness to be treated or cured, and I agree with the Prime Minister who calls conversion therapy “abhorrent” and “repulsive”. In the light of this, what can the Minister do to accelerate the ban?

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have been working to make sure that the measures that we put in place are enforceable and fully researched. I am confident that we will be able to announce progress on this very soon.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) are absolutely right to condemn this dreadful practice. The problem with it is that not only is it cruel, but it does not work—it is absolutely pointless. As well as imposing a ban, what can my right hon. Friend do to educate religions or other groups who think that this abhorrent practice has a purpose?

Elizabeth Truss: I completely agree with my hon. Friend that practices that harm or try to convert somebody into being something they are not, are not just wrong but completely inappropriate and unacceptable. That is why we will be bringing forward our plans to ban this practice very shortly. He is right that it should be true in all circumstances, including with religious practices. Of course, we must protect religious free speech, but we cannot condone those harmful practices taking place.

Rupa Huq: It is good to hear the Minister’s words after three years of dither and delay that have cost the Government three members of their LGBT panel. Can she now give us a legislative timetable for when ending this archaic practice of conversion therapy will be on the statute book once and for all?

Elizabeth Truss: I agree with the hon. Lady that we need to get on with doing this. I can assure her that since I got this job a year ago I have been working to make sure that the ban we put in place is properly enforceable and has the right measures in place. We have been looking at international experience to ensure that we do this correctly, but I am very keen to get on with it and I can assure the hon. Lady that we are very much on it.

Charlotte Nichols: The Minister will be aware that it has been almost three years since the Government committed to ending the practice of conversion therapy. Will she therefore take this opportunity to apologise to all those who have been harmed by these abhorrent practices as a result of the Government’s inaction, and commit today to bringing forward a full legislative ban on practices to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, to give all LGBT people the protection that they deserve?

Elizabeth Truss: I am very clear that these practices are utterly abhorrent. I would point out that I have been in this job for a year and I have been working to make sure that the ban we put in place is enforceable. I have also dealt with a number of other long-standing issues, such as responding to the consultation on the reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to make the process simpler and kinder for transgender people, improving transgender health care and changing the blood donation criteria for gay men donating blood. We are also working on an international LGBT conference, entitled Safe to Be Me, to end discrimination across the world. It is always important with legislation to ensure that we get it right and that it is properly enforceable, and we will be bringing plans forward shortly.

Covid-19: Working Parents

Patricia Gibson: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on working parents.

Vicky Ford: We know that the pandemic has been hard on all families, especially those who have been juggling work and childcare. That is one of the reasons why schools have remained open to the children of key workers throughout this time, and why early years settings have remained open to all since last June. I meet regularly with colleagues across Government to discuss support for families.

Patricia Gibson: Universal credit’s young parent penalty denies single parents under 25 years old the same level of social security as those above that age, pushing those affected—90% of whom are women, and the majority of them in work—into poverty. What representations is the Minister making to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to fix this arbitrary inequality and discriminatory practice in the social security system and to abolish the young parent penalty?

Vicky Ford: This UK Government have put unprecedented amounts—billions—into support for jobs and incomes, including the £150 million flexible support fund, which helps women access childcare. The billions that the UK has put into supporting jobs, especially for those on low incomes, are yet another reminder of why the people of Scotland increasingly agree that they are better off as part of the UK.

Topical Questions

Peter Gibson: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: We have a huge opportunity, as we recover from covid-19, for women across the world to build back better. That is why I am convening a group of leaders in the G7 gender equality advisory council this year under the newly appointed chair, Sarah Sands, with leaders such as Professor Sarah Gilbert, who spearheaded the Oxford vaccine, Ritu Karidhal, who helped to lead India’s Mars orbital mission and Iris Bohnet, who has revolutionised our understanding of fairness in the work- place. Together, we can lead on education for women and girls, women’s economic empowerment, and ending violence against women across the world.

Peter Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I commend her on her choice of Darlington for the newly announced Department for International Trade hubs? I look forward to welcoming her to the Tees Valley. I also welcome her commitment to a ban on conversion therapy. Does she agree that this so-called therapy is abuse and that those who perpetrate such abuse should be prevented in law from being able to do so? As a gay man and a Christian, I believe that such controls must also extend to religious organisations that seek to change a person’s sexuality. Will she ensure that the ban extends to these too?

Elizabeth Truss: I was delighted to announce yesterday that we will be bringing a trade and investment hub to Darlington. We are also looking at moving the headquarters of our Equalities Office to the north of England, and no doubt Darlington will be putting in a bid for that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need  to stamp out coercion and causing people harm wherever it takes place. That is what I am determined to do, and that is what I will be bringing forward shortly.

Marsha de Cordova: Over the past 10 days we have seen the Government try to defend their poor record on ending violence against women. They have recently reopened the consultation on this issue, but there is no use in consulting people if the Government are not going to take any action. Take the consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace, which closed 18 months ago. We have seen no response from the Minister and no action from the Government, despite the fact that half of women experience sexual harassment at work. Can the Minister tell the House today when she will respond to this consultation and take the much-needed action to end sexual harassment?

Kemi Badenoch: It is quite wrong to say that the Government are taking no action on tackling violence against women. We will be publishing a new strategy in spring 2021, which will help to better target perpetrators and support victims of these crimes. The call for evidence to input into this work has been extended to 26 March, and it is vital that we hear from women everywhere, especially given recent public discussions and concerns.
There is so much that we have been doing, including the end-to-end rape review, which is looking at how every stage of the criminal justice system handles rape cases from police report to the final outcome at court. If the hon. Lady does want to work with us to end violence against women, the way to do it is constructively and not by making accusations that we are not taking any action.

Marsha de Cordova: We on this side of the House are very committed to ending violence against women and girls, but there is a pattern with this Government. They consult and they review, but they take very little action.
Yesterday we marked a year since the first national lockdown. The pandemic, as we all know, has had an unequal impact on our black, Asian and ethnic minority people. Last July, the Prime Minister commissioned a review into race and ethnic disparities. It was due to be published in December last year, than they delayed it until February this year, and it is now nearly April and still no report.
Can the Minister tell us when the Prime Minister intends to publish his report, and will it be accompanied by a race equality strategy to tackle the ongoing structural and institutional inequalities?

Kemi Badenoch: The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities will be reporting shortly, but it is disappointing that the hon. Lady seems to forget it is an independent commission. It is not the Prime Minister but an independent commission that will be publishing the report. What will happen afterwards is that the Government will provide their response to the commission’s recommendations, and we shall wait and see what the commission recommends.
What I have intended is that the commission has the freedom and the space to provide a set of recommendations that are robust. We are doing this not on dates but on data, and we need to make sure it is something that will stand the test of time and not just be a response to Opposition Members who are not actually interested in solving this problem but want to use it politically.

Imran Ahmad Khan: One of the less talked about but more impactful and successful recent Government-run programmes is the period product scheme for schools and colleges in England, which provides access to free sanitary products for those in education, including approximately 5,000 girls between the ages of 10 and 19 in my Wakefield constituency. Many women across the UK, however, continue to struggle with access to sanitary products, including those experiencing homelessness and those in financial hardship as a consequence of the pandemic. Will my hon. Friend kindly outline for the House what steps she is taking to promote access to female sanitary products?

Kemi Badenoch: The Government have taken several important steps to ensure women are able to access the sanitary products they need. From 1 January 2021 the tampon tax has been abolished, with a zero rate of VAT applied to women’s sanitary products coming into effect. The Department for Education is leading a scheme to provide access to free period products in schools and colleges in England, NHS England announced in March 2019 that it will offer free period products to every hospital patient who needs them, including long-term patients, and the Home Office has changed the law to ensure that all people in custody are provided with free health and hygiene products, including period products.

Chi Onwurah: In lockdown, we have all become much more dependent on technology, yet that technology is not designed to treat us equally, with video-conferencing and photo-sharing apps that do not recognise black faces, recruitment algorithms that discriminate on ethnicity, and the Home Office’s own visa application algorithm withdrawn because of bias. In this week of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, what is the Minister doing to prevent structural racism from being further entrenched by new technologies?

Kemi Badenoch: The hon. Lady raises a very interesting question, and this is something the Government are aware of and are looking into. Yesterday, I spoke to Dr Tony Sewell, who is chairing the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities; I am aware that it has researched this extensively and I look forward to seeing what its report says on it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sorry we did not get as many Members in as normal, but we have to move on to questions to the Prime Minister.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Stephen Farry: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 March.

Boris Johnson: The last 12 months have been the most difficult for a generation, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with all those who have lost loved ones during the pandemic. I also want to pay tribute to every person in this country  for playing their part, whether working on the frontline, staying at home to prevent the spread of the virus, or working on vaccine development and supply. It is that vaccination programme that has brought hope, allowing us to set out the cautious but irreversible road map out of lockdown.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

Stephen Farry: Many independent countries, from Switzerland to New Zealand, have bilateral veterinary agreements with the European Union and face lower non-tariff barriers than the UK, despite our very high standards. With the Food and Drink Federation reporting a massive drop in UK food exports—over 90% in some areas—and with sanitary and phytosanitary checks constituting the main challenge for the Northern Ireland protocol, surely the Prime Minister should be making it a priority to negotiate a bespoke UK-EU veterinary agreement?

Boris Johnson: That is exactly why we put in temporary and technical measures to allow free trade to continue across the whole of the UK. It is very important for those who object to the measures that we have taken that the protocol should uphold the principle of east-west trade, as well as north-south trade, and that is exactly what we are trying to do.

Nusrat Ghani: In Sussex, by the end of this week we will have delivered 1 million covid jabs. Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the local vaccine heroes and, in particular, to Adam Doyle and his leadership in Hailsham, to Charlotte Luck in Uckfield, and to Dr Susie Padgham in Crowborough? Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK’s success is built on the confidence that people have in the fantastic vaccine technology and that should, and when, our constituents be contacted to have a vaccination, they should definitely take up the first available appointment?

Boris Johnson: I can certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Adam Doyle, Charlotte Luck and Dr Susie Padgham for all their efforts, and my hon. Friend is completely right in what she says about the foundations of the UK’s vaccine success. I had my jab on Friday. I do not know whether you have had yours, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] You certainly have. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has had his. I encourage everybody to get it.

Keir Starmer: May I start by joining the Prime Minister in his remarks about yesterday’s day of reflection for the 126,000 people who lost their lives to covid? That is a shocking number, and behind every one of those numbers is a grieving family. As soon as restrictions lift, there must be a full public inquiry, because that is the only way we can get to the bottom of the many mistakes that were made during the pandemic and find justice for those who have suffered so much.
Why did the Prime Minister promise at the last election that he would
“not be cutting our armed services in any form”?

Boris Johnson: That was because what we were going to do was actually increase spending on our armed services by the biggest amount since the cold war. We are investing £24 billion in modernising our armed forces, with no redundancies, and keeping our Army at 100,000, if we include the reserves. I must say that I take it slightly amiss from the right hon. and learned Gentleman given that he stood on a manifesto to elect a man who wanted to pull this country out of NATO.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister is fighting the last war. Is he trying to pretend, hidden in that answer, that the Army stands at over 100,000—the number that the Prime Minister just quoted? When the Secretary of State for Defence made his statement to the House on Monday, he was absolutely clear:
“I have therefore taken the decision to reduce the size of the Army…to 72,500 by 2025.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 638.]
Only this Prime Minister could suggest that a reduction from 82,000 to 72,000 is somehow not a cut.
The Prime Minister did not answer my question, which was: why did he make that promise? He said, before the last election—it is all very well him looking up—that
“we will not be cutting our armed services in any form”.
What did he do this week? He cut the British Army by 10,000; he cut the number of tanks; he cut the number of planes for our RAF; and he cut the number of ships for the Royal Navy. I say “he”—the Prime Minister did not have the courage to come to the House himself to say what he was doing. Let me ask the Prime Minister a simple question, going back to that promise before the election: did he ever intend to keep his promise to our armed forces?

Boris Johnson: Not only did we keep our promise in the manifesto, but we actually increased spending by 14% more than that manifesto commitment. It is frankly satirical to be lectured about the size of the Army when the shadow Foreign Secretary herself wrote only recently that the entire British Army should be turned into a kind of peace corps, and when, as I say, the Leader of the Opposition stood on a manifesto and wanted to elect a leader who wanted to disband the armed services. We are making a massive investment in our defences and in our future. It is wonderful to hear the new spirit of jingo that seems to have enveloped some of those on the Labour Benches—they don’t like it up ’em, Mr Speaker.

Keir Starmer: Let’s try this for up ’em. The Prime Minister might want to avoid the promises he made, but I have found an interview that he gave during the general election campaign. Here is the headline: “No troop cuts—Tories will maintain size of armed forces”. The article then goes on to quote the Prime Minister: “Boris Johnson has promised that he will not make any new cuts to the armed forces. He also promised”—the Prime Minister might want to listen to this—“to maintain numbers at their current level, including the Army’s 82,000.” Now, I know the Prime Minister has form for making up quotes, but can he tell us whether he thinks the newspapers have somehow misquoted him? Or does he now remember making that promise?

Boris Johnson: Yes, because there will be no redundancies in our armed forces and, as I said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if we include reserves,  we are even keeping the Army at 100,000. On top of that, we are doing what is necessary to modernise our armed forces, taking them into the 21st century. We are building more frigates and investing in cyber-warfare. We are doing all the difficult things that Labour shirked during its time in office, including modernising and upgrading our nuclear deterrent, which half the shadow Front-Bench team would like to remove, leaving Britain defenceless internationally.

Keir Starmer: I have every respect for our reservists, but the Prime Minister is just playing with the numbers. He knows very well that the numbers have been cut. The trouble is that we just cannot trust the Conservatives to protect our armed forces. [Interruption.] Let us look—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, let us look at their most recent manifestos. These are the manifestos that Conservative Members stood on. The 2015 manifesto—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am struggling to hear the Leader of the Opposition, and I will hear the Leader of the Opposition. Please, I want respect for the Prime Minister and I expect the same for the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: The 2015 manifesto said:
“We will maintain the size of the regular armed services”.
The 2017 manifesto:
“We will maintain the overall size of the armed forces”.
In 2019, the Prime Minister said that
“we will not be cutting our armed services in any form.”
The truth is that since 2010 our armed forces have been cut by 45,000 and our Army will now be cut to its lowest level in 300 years. Let me remind the Prime Minister and Conservative Members why this matters. Lord Richards, former Chief of the Defence Staff, has warned that with an armed force of this size now
“we almost certainly…would not be able to retake the Falklands…and stop genocides”.
[Interruption.] He says it is rubbish. That is Lord Richards, Prime Minister. After 10 years of Conservative government, is the Prime Minister not ashamed of that?

Boris Johnson: This Conservative Government are massively proud of the investment that we made in our armed forces which, as I have said, is the biggest uplift since the cold war. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should look at what the NATO Secretary General had to say about our investment, which is absolutely vital for the future success of the alliance and, indeed, for the security of many other countries around the world. It is a £24 billion investment—investment in the future combat air system, the new Army special operations Ranger Regiment, £1.3 billion to upgrade the Challenger main battle tanks, a massive investment in the Typhoon squadrons and so on.
We are investing in the future. Yes, of course, we have had to take some tough decisions, but that is because we believe in our defences and we believe that they should be more than merely symbolic. It is the Labour party that is consistently, historically—it is hilarious to be lectured about the Falklands, Mr Speaker—weak on protecting this country. It was most visible last week during the debate on the integrated review, when it was plain that those on the shadow Front Bench could not even agree to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent. That is absolutely true, Mr Speaker.

Keir Starmer: What is weaker than making a promise to our armed forces just before the election, then breaking it and not being prepared to admit it—not having the courage to admit it? There is a pattern here. The Prime Minister promised the NHS that they would have “whatever they need”; now nurses are getting a pay cut. He promised a tax guarantee; now he is putting taxes up for families. He promised that he would not cut the armed forces; now he has done just that. If the Prime Minister is so proud of what he is doing, so determined to push ahead, why does he not at least have the courage to put this cut in the armed forces to a vote in this House?

Boris Johnson: I am proud of what we are doing to increase spending on the armed forces by the biggest amount since the cold war. The only reason that we can do that is that, under this Conservative Government, we have been running a sound economy. It is also because we believe in defence. We have been getting on with job. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about nurses and investment in the NHS. I am proud of the massive investment that we have made in the NHS. Actually, we have 60,000 more nurses now in training, and we have increased their starting salary by 12.8%. We are getting on with the job of recruiting more police—20,000 more police. I think that we have done 7,000 already, while they are out on the streets at demonstrations, shouting, “Kill the Bill”. That is the difference between his party and my party. We are pro-vax, low tax and, when it comes to defence, we have got your backs.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I genuinely mean this: I do not believe that any Member of Parliament would support that “Kill the Bill”. We are all united in this House in the support and the protection that the police offer us and nobody would shy away from that.

Keir Starmer: The question, Prime Minister, is why not have the courage to put it to a vote. That question was avoided, Mr Speaker, like all of the questions. We all know why he will not put it to a vote. Let me quote a Conservative MP, the Chair of the Defence Committee, because he recognises—he has experience and respect across the House—that this review means
“dramatic cuts to our troop numbers, tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and more than 100 RAF aircraft”.
He went on to say—this is your MP, Prime Minister—
“cuts that, if tested by a parliamentary vote, I do not believe would pass.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 644-645.]
Those words are not from me, but from the Prime Minister’s own MPs.
I want to turn to another issue that affects thousands of jobs and many communities across the country. Some 5,000 jobs are at risk at Liberty Steel, as well as many more in the supply chain. The UK steel industry is under huge pressure, and the Government’s failure to prioritise British steel in infrastructure projects is costing millions of pounds of investment. Will the Prime Minister now commit to working with us and the trade unions to change this absurd situation, to put British steel first and to do whatever is necessary to protect those jobs?

Boris Johnson: Just a reminder—I am, of course, happy to co-operate in any way—that the steel output halved under the Labour Government. I share very much the anxiety of families of steelworkers at Liberty  Steel. That is why my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary has had, I think, three meetings with Liberty Steel in just the last few days to take the question forward and see what we can do. We are actively engaged. We are investing huge sums in modernising British steel, making a commitment to British steel plants and making them more environmentally friendly.
We have a massive opportunity, because this Government are engaged on a £640 billion infrastructure campaign: HS2, the great Dogger Bank wind farm, Hinkley, the Beeching railway reversals. All these things that we are doing across the country will call for millions and millions of tonnes of British steel. Now, thanks to leaving the European Union, we have an opportunity to direct that procurement at British firms in the way that we would want to, whereas I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would like nothing more than to take this country back into the European Union and remove that opportunity for British steel and British steelworkers.

Robin Millar: Last night, I spoke with young people in Aberconwy about their experiences of 12 months living with lockdowns. They were very articulate about the challenges they have overcome and their concerns for the future, such as finding a job and moving to a new university. Does the Prime Minister have a message for Evie, Jonas, Saul and Lauren, and for other young people thinking about their futures and a life after lockdown?

Boris Johnson: Yes; my message is just to thank them for what they have put up with and to say that I am sorry about how difficult it has been for their generation. I do not think there is any group of young people who have been put through so much and who have had to sacrifice so much in our lifetimes. We owe it to them to repair their education and get them into work as fast as we possibly can. That is why we have set out the £2 billion kickstart fund and many other schemes that I hope will be useful to my hon. Friend’s constituents.

Ian Blackford: Yesterday, my brilliant colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), made his final speech to this Parliament. He is standing for the Scottish Parliament and is doing the right thing by stepping down as an MP. By doing the right thing, he will avoid a dual mandate and a separate by-election that would cost the public £175,000. The Scottish Tory leader in Westminster is also seeking a place in the Scottish Parliament, but he is refusing to step down as an MP. As his boss, will the Prime Minister order the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) to resign his seat, avoid a dual mandate and save the taxpayer £175,000—or are dual mandates one more Tory policy where they think greed is good?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) is doing an excellent job of holding the Scottish National party to account for their manifold failings, not least on education—failing to deliver on crime and failing, in my view, to deliver for the people of Scotland, so caught up as they are in their desire for independence and another referendum for separation. I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned that so far, but perhaps he will now.

Ian Blackford: [Inaudible] simply yet again a Prime Minister failing to answer a question and that charge that “greed is good” in Tory policies.
We know that Tory leaders in Scotland have a habit of dodging democracy. Baroness Davidson is fleeing the House of Lords and the current Tory leader is too feart to stand in a constituency. No wonder this morning’s Daily Record declared that the Scottish Tories have
“exposed themselves as shameless…nasty”
and just “plain daft”. It also says:
“They are led by…a man so devoid of imagination that when asked what he would do if he was prime minister for a day, replied: ‘I would like to see tougher enforcement against Gypsy travellers.’”
Does the Prime Minister really have confidence in a Scottish Tory leader who does not even have the courage to put himself before the voters in a Scottish constituency?

Boris Johnson: Of course. The right hon. Gentleman represents a party that is so devoid of imagination that they cannot come up with any workable solutions to help the people of Scotland improve their education, improve the fight against crime, or cut taxes in Scotland, where they are the highest in the whole of the UK. They are so devoid of imagination that they are a one-track record—all they can talk about is a referendum to break up the United Kingdom. That is their song. I am amazed, actually, that it is twice he has not mentioned it—maybe he is getting nervous of singing that particular song. It is rather curious. He is not coming back now, is he, but next week, or after Easter, let us see if he mentions it again.

Miriam Cates: As my right hon. Friend has already said, the steel industry is fundamental to our future in the UK, and we cannot reach our net zero commitments or our infrastructure targets without steel. Liberty Speciality Steel in my constituency has an uncertain future because of the funding challenges faced by Liberty Steel Group. The Stocksbridge works is a strategic asset of national importance. So what assurances can my right hon. Friend give my constituents that the Government will do what it takes to safeguard jobs and livelihoods and secure the future of steelmaking in the UK?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is a passionate and successful advocate for her constituents and for steelmaking in this country, in which this Government passionately believe. That is why, as I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we are supporting the UK steel industry with more than £500 million of relief, and also with huge investments to make our steelmaking greener and more competitive. We will do everything we can to ensure that we continue with British jobs in producing British steel with the infrastructure investments that I have mentioned and directing procurement at British jobs in the way that we now can.

Edward Davey: The Prime Minister talks about restoring freedoms as we emerge from the lockdown, yet he is pushing a Bill that will restrict one of our most fundamental freedoms—the right to peaceful protest and peaceful assembly—and tomorrow he is asking for another blank cheque to restrict everyone’s freedoms until September, even though  we now know that the vast bulk of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is not needed to tackle the pandemic. So will the Prime Minister, for once, match his actions to his words, drop these draconian laws, and instead publish a road map to revive civil liberties and freedoms in our country?

Boris Johnson: I sympathise very much with the right hon. Gentleman’s desire to see freedoms restored, and I want to do that as fast as we possibly can. That is why we have set out the cautious but, we hope, irreversible road map that we have, which I hope he supports—and I hope the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras also supports, although you can never tell. What we also want to do is make sure that we are able to deal with the very considerable backlog that we have faced because of the pandemic: making sure that we have powers still to accelerate court procedures with Zoom courts; making sure that we allow volunteers to continue to help in the NHS and retired staff to come back to the colours; and making sure that we have powers that are necessary in education. It is important to be able to continue with those special measures for the months ahead, and that is why we have set out the Bill as we have.

Lucy Allan: My constituent Tracy Felstead is at the Court of Appeal today, along with 41 other sub-postmasters. She is seeking to clear her name in a grotesque miscarriage of justice: the Post Office Horizon scandal. The Court has heard about the “institutional imperative” to back a flawed IT system and to convict sub-postmasters, destroying the lives of decent men and women in a ruthless determination to protect the Post Office come what may. Taxpayers will be picking up the bill for this multimillion-pound reckless wrongdoing. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in order for justice to be truly done, those responsible for this failure and its cover-up must be held to account? Does he agree that heads should roll?

Boris Johnson: I certainly understand my hon. Friend’s strong feelings on this issue, and her campaign is shared by many Members across the House. That is why we launched the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, which has made quite fast progress. Yes, we do want to learn the lessons. Yes, we do want to make sure that the right people are held to account for what happened and that the Post Office never repeats a mistake like this.

Allan Dorans: Subject to certain conditions being met, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 allows for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to call a referendum on Irish reunification and for Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom within seven years of a previous referendum. Those conditions for a referendum have all been more than met in Scotland since the independence referendum in 2014, seven years ago. We are allegedly a Union of equal nations, so why, as a democrat, will the Prime Minister not agree to a section 30 order, enabling the democratic will of the people of Scotland to be measured? Is it because he is fearful of the likely outcome?

Boris Johnson: I knew it would n0t be long—there they are! There are a couple of reasons. First of all, senior members of the hon. Member’s party said that it was a “once in a generation” event in 2014. I think that that point of view is shared across the House, and quite  rightly. The other reason, which is absolutely plain to people in this country, is that we are all trying to build back better and get out of a pandemic. That is the priority for the British people—it is the priority for the whole country —and I think people are, frankly, amazed to hear the Scottish nationalist party still, in these circumstances, banging on about their constitutional obsessions.

John Lamont: Scottish rugby legend Doddie Weir lives in my constituency and has been diagnosed with motor neurone disease. Doddie’s foundation, the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation, is campaigning alongside the research community, patients, MND Scotland and the MND Association for the Government to invest £50 million over five years to establish a virtual MND research institute. I understand that positive discussions have already taken place with the Health Secretary, but it is important to ensure that other priorities such as this are not lost in the pandemic. Will the Prime Minister commit the Government to supporting this initiative, so that we can work towards finding a cure for this devastating disease?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much for raising this important question and for championing research into motor neurone disease, and I thank him also for raising the excellent work of the My Name’5 Doddie Foundation. We have spent £54 million in the last five years towards this cause, and we are looking at ways significantly to boost the research that we are supporting.

Afzal Khan: A year into this crisis and more than 126,000 lives have been lost. Behind that staggering figure are millions grieving for their loved ones. In my family, we have lost an entire generation. I could not hold my mum’s hand as she lay dying, and I recently lost both my father and mother-in-law within just days of one another. Grieving families like mine want and deserve to understand what happened and whether anything could have been done to prevent this tragedy. Will the Prime Minister today commit to launching a full public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic as soon as current restrictions are lifted?

Boris Johnson: I want to say to the hon. Gentleman that I know that the whole House shares my sympathies and my sorrow for his loss, and we sympathise also with his entire family. I know that his experience is one, as he rightly said, that has been shared by far too many families up and down the country. That is why, as soon as it is right to do so, as soon as it would not be an irresponsible diversion of the energies of the key officials involved, we are of course committed to an inquiry, to learn the lessons, to make sure that something like this can never happen again.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just try and push us through to get through the list?

Andrew Jones: On 3 May, Wembley is scheduled to host the finals of the FA Vase and FA Trophy—not from this season, but delayed a year from the last one. But that date means that no fans can go, even though a trip to Wembley to follow their team is like a holy grail, especially for the smaller clubs. The MPs for the clubs involved—the  right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and myself—have raised this with the Football Association. Will the Prime Minister join us in encouraging those scheduling the matches to do all they can to move the date, so that the fans can attend?

Boris Johnson: I hope very much that the Football Association will have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said and that they will do what they can. I look forward to 17 May, when spectators, according to the road map, may return.

Ronnie Cowan: Seventeen months ago, Prime Minister, on 23 October 2019, I stood in this place and asked you what you were going to do to get medical cannabis to children suffering from rare forms of epilepsy. You said to me that you recognised their “desperate difficulties”, and that you would take up the matter “personally” with me. Their difficulties are still desperate and you have not taken this up personally with me. In the interim we have developed new medicines, distributed them around the country and given them to people who need them, free of charge. Why are we discriminating against these children? What are they—are they worth less than the general public? Will the Prime Minister move to make medical cannabis available to children with epilepsy? If you could please, Prime Minister, take this opportunity personally, five minutes of your time today could go a long, long way.

Boris Johnson: I am very happy to do whatever we can to meet the hon. Gentleman and take the matter forward, but the Dutch Government, I am told, have confirmed they will allow the continued supply of Bedrocan oil against UK prescriptions until at least the summer—

Ronnie Cowan: Until July.

Boris Johnson: Until July, as the hon. Gentleman says. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is working to find a permanent solution and I have no doubt that he will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman.

Derek Thomas: Given the past 12 months I, like many others, would not want the job of Prime Minister, even for all the tea in China. However, the job does give opportunities to directly improve the lives of people who are very, very sick. March is Brain Tumour Awareness Month and over 100,000 people have signed a Brain Tumour Research petition calling for the Government to match brain tumour research funding with that for other devastating cancers. We know from covid that properly funded research really can bring improved care, treatment and a cure. Will my friend the Prime Minister meet me to receive the petition, when it is safe to do so?

Boris Johnson: Yes, indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is doing to champion research into brain cancer. I know, from activists in my constituency, where Centre of Hope runs the Hillingdon brain tumour and injury group, how vital it is, because too often people do not appreciate the number of people who are the victims of brain tumours. We have put another £40 million into brain tumour research and we are certainly going to put more. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My constituents Ronald and Julia Sheriff’s daughter Danielle currently lives in Gran Canaria. Last year, aged just 33, she suffered an aneurysm. Danielle remains deeply unwell and her family are crowdfunding to bring her back home to live. They have been advised that when she does return home, she will not be eligible for the treatment that she needs on the NHS. Please can the Prime Minister support the crowdfund for Dani, and give his personal assurance that she will receive the care that she needs from our NHS?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady for raising the case. My deepest sympathies are with Danielle and her family. I will make sure that the relevant Health Minister meets her to discuss the case as fast as possible.

Kelly Tolhurst: Forty years on from my predecessor Dame Peggy Fenner’s opposition to the closure of Chatham dockyard, with the loss of thousands of jobs, I am now opposing the closure of what today is Chatham docks, with the loss of over 1,000 skilled jobs. Closing this regionally important asset, home to successful maritime and construction businesses—all growing, in spite of covid—to make way for flats represents short-term profit for the landowner at the expense of long-term economic and environmental benefit. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me, local councillors and the “Save Chatham Docks” campaign that coastal infrastructure plays a significant role in the growth of our local economies, creating jobs and clean maritime technology that contributes to our net zero ambition?

Boris Johnson: Yes. One of the reasons we put £24 billion into defence alone is that it drives 400,000 jobs around the country, including the building of new frigates and new ships of all kinds. I hope very much that Chatham will benefit from the £100 million funding we put in on 24 December to rejuvenate coastal towns. The planning issue my hon. Friend raises is a matter for the local council, but I do hope a solution can be found that gives the benefits that she describes for the local community.

Paul Blomfield: Last night, I met again with leaseholders whose lives have been torn apart by the cladding and building safety scandal. The Prime Minister will recall that he told the House on 3 February that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]
No ifs, no buts: an unequivocal pledge. The Government’s measures so far fall well short of fulfilling it, so could the Prime Minister say now not what has been done, but what he will do to deliver his promise?

Boris Johnson: In addition to the £3.5 billion of investment that we have provided to remediate the cladding and the £1.6 billion that we have already done, we are providing a new scheme for leaseholders in the lower-risk buildings of, I think, the kind that the hon. Gentleman is describing, to pay for unsafe remediation over the long term. There will also be a new levy and tax on developers, so that they also contribute to the remediation costs.

Mike Penning: Before the Prime Minister became Prime Minister, we had a discussion to do with the prescribed medical use of cannabis, and how it was helping to save really seriously ill children—not hundreds or thousands, but about 150. We changed the law in November 2018 to make it legal for those prescriptions to be written by top consultants. Today, we have three children who have it free on the NHS, and about 150 children whose families have to beg and borrow and remortgage their homes so that they can pay about £2,000 a month. I say to the Prime Minister that this is wrong. As a father, like I am, we would do everything possible for our families, and these families are doing everything possible for their children. Can we have a follow-up meeting to the one in 2018, where I will bring one of the mothers who gets it free—not to stop her getting it free, but to explain to the Prime Minister how wrong it is that children’s lives are going to be lost if we have to go through the process that the NHS is proposing?

Boris Johnson: This is the second time I have been asked about this; I thank my right hon. Friend very much, and he is right to raise it. We will make sure that we have a proper meeting with the Department of Health so that we can resolve the issue of how to make sure that the supply of the Bedrocan or the cannabis-based products that are coming from Holland can be made secure, and can continue.

Dawn Butler: I personally thank you, Mr Speaker, for your support for Parliament’s covid memorial quilt.
Prime Minister, after PMQs, I will be presenting my cross-party private Member’s Bill, the Coronavirus (No. 2) Bill, to Parliament. It is based on scientific advice, Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies guidance, and lessons learned. Will the Prime Minister please commit to reading this Bill and providing me with a written response, maybe by tomorrow—I know that is a bit of an ask—but, if not, within the next two weeks?

Boris Johnson: I am very happy to make that commitment.

Philip Davies: To paraphrase the late, great, much missed Eric Forth, I believe in individual freedoms and individual responsibility. I believe that individuals make better decisions for themselves, their families and their communities than the state makes for them. I loathe the nanny state, and I believe in cutting taxes. Prime Minister, am I still a Conservative?

Boris Johnson: Yes.

Dave Doogan: We learned today—unfortunately, from the media, rather than a Minister—that the Treasury has informed the Office for Veterans’ Affairs that its budget is to be cut by 40%, from £5 million to £3 million. This cannot be right, as just yesterday Graeme Dey, the SNP Scottish Government’s Veterans Minister, announced a further £1 million to support Scottish veterans alone. These disparate positions are irreconcilable. This is a tale of two Governments, so will the Prime Minister follow the SNP’s lead and assure the House today that he will not allow this cut to UK funding for veterans?

Boris Johnson: Not only was this the first Government to create a Veterans Minister specifically with a charge of looking after veterans, and not only have we invested in them, but we have taken steps to protect our armed services veterans from vexatious litigation, pursued by lefty lawyers of a kind sitting not a million miles away from me today, who pursue them long after they have served Queen and country and when no new evidence has been provided. We tried to protect them, we have protected them and the Labour party voted against it.

Andrew Bridgen: The Prime Minister has always enjoyed his visits to my constituency of North West Leicestershire, whether it is Ashby-de-la-Zouch on the eve of the historic referendum or Castle Rock School, Coalville last August. He will therefore be pleased, but not surprised, that Leicestershire County Council for the last three years has been the most productive county authority in the country, despite also being the lowest funded. Can my right hon. Friend assure all the residents of Leicestershire that our Conservative-controlled county council will imminently benefit from fairer funding and the Government’s levelling-up agenda so that it can continue to deliver excellent public services?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank Leicestershire County Council for the way it is conducting itself and for delivering value for money. That is what the elections that are coming up in May are all going to be about, and invariably these Conservatives deliver better value, deliver better services and lower taxes. That is what Leicestershire County Council has done, and I congratulate it on it. I fully agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

Chris Elmore: The Government are saying that the community renewal fund is a fantastic opportunity for Wales, yet Bridgend county is not listed as a priority place for the fund. On 10 February at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister invented a world-leading battery plant for Bridgend in response to the significant job losses we have faced across my county borough in the last two years, something the Prime Minister has still refused to apologise to my constituents for. When will he stop treating my constituents as an afterthought, keep true to his promise of not a penny less for Wales and ensure that he brings real investment to my constituents in Ogmore?

Boris Johnson: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, in Ogmore and across Wales, the people of Wales and the Welsh Government will receive an additional £5.2 billion of resource funding, on top of the spring Budget funding of 2020-21; £800 million of the levelling up fund is going to the devolved nations; and each local authority in Wales—each local authority in Wales—will receive £125,000 in capacity funding. I look forward to working with him and with Welsh local government to deliver those improvements.

Lindsay Hoyle: That was the final question, and I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements before we start the next business.
Sitting suspended.

New Plan for Immigration

Priti Patel: I wish to make a statement on our new plan for immigration. The Government have taken back control of legal immigration by ending free movement and introducing a points-based immigration system. We are now addressing the challenge of illegal migration head-on.
I am introducing the most significant overhaul of our asylum system in decades—a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term plan—because while people are dying we have a responsibility to act. People are dying at sea, in lorries and in shipping containers, having put their lives into the hands of criminal gangs that facilitate illegal journeys to the UK. To stop the deaths, we must stop the trade in people that causes them.
Our society is enriched by legal immigration. We celebrate those who have come to the UK lawfully and have helped to build Britain. We always will. Since 2015, we have resettled almost 25,000 men, women and children seeking refuge from persecution across the world—more than any other EU country. We have welcomed more than 29,000 close relatives through refugee family reunion and created a pathway to citizenship to enable over 5 million people in Hong Kong to come to the UK. Nobody can say that the British public are not fair or generous when it comes to helping those in need, but the British public also recognise that for too long parts of the immigration system have been open to abuse.
At the heart of our new plan for immigration is a simple principle: fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not the ability to pay people smugglers. If someone enters the UK illegally from a safe country such as France, where they should and could have claimed asylum, they are not seeking refuge from persecution, as is the intended purpose of the asylum system; instead, they are choosing the UK as their preferred destination and they are doing so at the expense of those with nowhere else to go.
Our system is collapsing under the pressures of parallel illegal routes to asylum, facilitated by criminal smugglers. The existence of parallel routes is deeply unfair, advantaging those with the means to pay smugglers over those in desperate need. The capacity of our asylum system is not unlimited, so the presence of economic migrants, which these illegal routes introduce, limit our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection. This is manifestly unfair to those desperately waiting to be resettled in the UK. It is not fair to the British people either, whose taxes pay for vital public services and for an asylum system that has skyrocketed in cost—it is costing over £1 billion this year.
There were more than 32,000 attempts to enter the UK illegally in 2019, with 8,500 people arriving by small boat in 2020. Of those, 87% were men and 74% were aged between 18 and 39. We should ask ourselves: where are the vulnerable women and children that this system should exist to protect? The system is becoming overwhelmed: 109,000 claims are sitting in the asylum queue. Some 52,000 are awaiting an initial asylum decision, with almost three quarters of those waiting a year or more. Some 42,000 failed asylum seekers have not left the country, despite having had their claim refused.
The persistent failure to enforce our laws and immigration rules, with a system that is open to gaming by economic migrants and exploitation by criminals, is eroding public trust and disadvantaging vulnerable people who need our help. That is why our new plan for immigration is driven by three fair but firm objectives: first, to increase the fairness of our system, so we can protect and support those in genuine need of asylum; secondly, to deter illegal entry into the UK, breaking the business model of people smugglers and protecting the lives of those they endanger; and, thirdly, to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. Let me take each in turn.
First, we will continue to provide safe refuge to those in need, strengthening support for those arriving through safe and legal routes. People coming to the UK through resettlement routes will be granted indefinite leave to remain. They will receive more support to learn English, find work and integrate. I will also act to help those who have suffered injustices by amending British nationality law, so that members of the Windrush generation will be able to obtain British citizenship more easily.
Secondly, this plan marks a step change in our approach as we toughen our stance to deter illegal entry and the criminals who endanger life by enabling it. To get to the UK, many illegal arrivals have travelled through a safe country such as France, where they could and should have claimed asylum. We must act to reduce the pull factors of our system and disincentivise illegal entry. For the first time, whether people enter the UK legally or illegally will have an impact on how their asylum claim progresses and on their status in the UK if that claim is successful. We will deem their claim as inadmissible and make every effort to remove those who enter the UK illegally having travelled through a safe country first in which they could and should have claimed asylum. Only where removal is not possible will those who have successful claims, having entered illegally, receive a new temporary protection status. This is not an automatic right to settle—they will be regularly reassessed for removal —and will include limited access to benefits and limited family reunion rights. Our tough new stance will also include: new maximum life sentences for people smugglers and facilitators; new rules to stop unscrupulous people posing as children; and strengthening enforcement powers for Border Force.
Thirdly, we will seek to rapidly remove those with no right to be here in the UK, establishing a fast-track appeals process, streamlining the appeals system and making quicker removal decisions for failed asylum seekers and dangerous foreign criminals. We will tackle the practice of meritless claims that clog up the courts with last-minute claims and appeals—a fundamental unfairness that lawyers tell me frustrates them, too—because for too long, our justice system has been gamed. Almost three quarters of migrants in detention raised last-minute, new claims, or challenges or other issues, with over eight in 10 of these eventually being denied as valid reasons to stay in the UK. Enough is enough. Our new plan sets out a one-stop process to require all claims to be made upfront—no more endless, meritless claims to frustrate removal; no more stalling justice. Our new system will be faster and fairer and will help us better support the most vulnerable.
Our new plan builds on the work already done to take back control of our borders, building a system that upholds our reputation as a country where criminality  is not rewarded, but which is a haven for those in need. There are no quick fixes or shortcuts to success, but this long-term plan, pursued doggedly, will fix our broken system.
We know that Members of the Opposition would prefer a different plan—one that embraces the idea of open borders. Many of them were reluctant to end free movement, with Members opposite on record as having said that all immigration controls are racist or sexist. And to those who say we lack compassion, I simply say that while people are dying, we must act to deter these journeys, and if they do not like our plan, where is theirs?
This Government promised to take a common-sense approach to controlling immigration, legal and illegal, and we will deliver on that promise. The UK is playing its part to tackle the inhumanity of illegal migration and, today, I will press for global action at the G6. I commend this statement to the House.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. She said in her statement that the asylum system is broken, and she talked about a persistent failure of the rules. They are stark admissions for a Conservative Home Secretary whose party has been in power for 11 years.
The truth is, we have seen Conservative failure across the board. The Home Secretary mentioned the Windrush generation, while this Government presides over a compensation scheme that their own figures show has helped only 338 people. Then there is the asylum processing system, which is appallingly slow. The share of applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in 2014 to just 20% in 2019. There is no point blaming others. This is the fault of Conservative Ministers and a failure of leadership at the Home Office, and there has not been the progress we need on the promised agreement with France on dealing with appalling criminal gangs and rises in the horrific crime of human trafficking.
Yes, the Government policy is defined by a lack of compassion and a lack of competence, and I am afraid that the plans outlined by the Government today look like they are going to continue in exactly the same vein. No wonder the plans outlined have been described as “inhumane” by the British Red Cross. They risk baking into the UK system the callousness, frankly, of this Government’s approach. No wonder, either, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed concerns about the Government’s understanding of international law. The Home Secretary spoke today about the importance of safe and legal routes, yet the resettlement scheme was suspended, and the Dubs scheme was shamefully closed down after accepting just 480 unaccompanied children rather than the 3,000 expected. [Interruption.] The Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), continues to shout at me; he cannot hide from the Government’s record of the last 11 years. And the Government looked the other way last summer; rather than help children stuck in the burning refugee camp of Lesbos, they turned the other way.
At the same time, these changes risk making the situation even worse for victims of human trafficking, as it would be even harder to access help in the UK,  helping criminal gangs escape justice. Ministers have abolished the Department for International Development, the very Department that helped address the forces that drive people from their homes in the first place—war, poverty and persecution.
Not only are Government plans lacking in compassion, but the Government do not even have the competence to explain how their plans would work. A central part of the measures briefed out by the Government relies on new international agreements, yet the Home Secretary could not mention one of those agreements that have been concluded this morning. Sources close to the Home Secretary have briefed out ridiculous, inhumane schemes such as processing people on Ascension Island, over 4,000 miles away, and wave machines in the English channel to drive back boats. When the Government recently briefed out plans for Gibraltar and the Isle of Man, they were dismissed within hours.
The proposals also show that the Government have not woken up to the urgent need to protect the UK against the pandemic and support our health and social care system to rebuild. We have heard the Prime Minister this week be dangerously complacent about a third wave of covid from Europe, and the threat of new variants continues to grow, yet none of the UK Government plans includes measures desperately required to protect the UK. We need world-leading border protections against covid, including a comprehensive hotel quarantine system, yet throughout this pandemic the Government have done too little, too late. The proposals do nothing to address the recruitment crisis in the health and social care system, where urgent changes are needed to help recruit the medical and social care staff to deal with covid and NHS waiting lists.
The reality is that the measures outlined today will do next to nothing to stop people making dangerous crossings, and they risk withdrawing support from desperate people. The Conservatives have undoubtedly broken the immigration system over the last 11 years, but the reality today is that they have absolutely no idea how to fix it.

Priti Patel: First, let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s distasteful comparisons to Windrush head-on. Members of the Windrush generation came to the UK lawfully to help rebuild Britain, and they were wronged by successive Governments, including Labour Governments. It is simply insulting to attempt to draw parallels between them and those entering our country unlawfully.
Not only are this Government ensuring that Windrush victims receive compensation—the compensation that they deserve—but today I am announcing new measures to fix historical anomalies in British nationality law to ensure that members of the Windrush generation can receive British citizenship more easily. That is a Conservative Home Secretary, and a Conservative Prime Minister and Government, righting these wrongs. As I have set out previously in the House, the Home Office is absolutely committed to supporting victims of the Windrush generation, and that is why today I have launched the biggest and most wide-ranging consultation when it comes to this new plan for immigration.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman commented on the record of Conservatives in government, so let me just set out some facts for him. From the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, such as my own family members, from a repressive regime; to proudly resettling more  refugees than any other EU country, as he heard me say in my statement; to supporting campaigners fleeing political persecution in Hong Kong—that is the record of Conservatives when it comes to humanitarianism. Under the Conservative leadership of this Government, the United Kingdom will always provide sanctuary to people who are having the light switched off on their own liberty and personal freedoms, and this new plan will build on that.
Thirdly, I am quite astonished by the tone of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, repeatedly suggesting that we just turn a blind eye to people attempting to come into our country illegally—people being smuggled in small boats and in the back of lorries. He will well know that we in this House have stood too often to hear about the tragedy of people who have died, whether in the channel or the back of refrigerated lorries. I will not apologise for being abundantly clear that an illegal journey to the UK is not worth the risk. That is what this plan is about: tackling illegal migration, protecting lives, and, of course, alongside that creating new routes.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me and the Government of lacking compassion. He accuses me of taking an inhumane approach. I suggest politely to him that he should not resort to personal attacks of that nature. I, and my own family in particular, understand what oppression is like and, after fleeing persecution, sought refuge in the United Kingdom, just like millions of others who have successfully rebuilt their lives. That lack of substance is not surprising, because the Labour party has no plans to fix the broken system. In fact, I understand that last night, the Labour party’s response to my plan was very much to look at my plan. As long as Labour Members are devoid of a plan of substance, they are defending a broken system that is encouraging illegal migration and supporting criminality. They are defending a system that is enabling an established criminal trade in asylum seekers, and causing human misery. It is a system that disregards the world’s most vulnerable, elbowing women and children to the side. It is a system that all too often, as I have seen, results in the tragic loss of life.
A family of five drowned on their way to this country—our country—only last year; in 2019, 39 victims were found dead in Purfleet in the back of a refrigerated lorry. That is inhumane. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are prepared to be associated with that criminal trade in asylum seeking and human misery, he is the one who lacks compassion. That is not a position that we will take, and I will not be complicit in defending the indefensible on that basis.
Finally, it is extraordinary to hear lectures about our border from the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, when it is still official Labour party policy to maintain and extend free movement rights, as per its party conference motion. In effect, that is to have open borders. We are the only party that is prepared to tackle illegal migration, show compassion to those who have been trafficked in the world, and create safe and legal routes, so that we help to save lives.

Shaun Bailey: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement because, just like my constituents, I am angry at the images we are seeing of small boats coming into the channel, and the skyrocketing costs of our asylum system—resources  that could be used to tackle inequalities in areas such as the “lost city” in Tipton, and give kids on that estate the chances to succeed. The broader issue is this: our European neighbours need to step up. It is as simple as that. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, who have put their faith in her, that she will continue to make the point to our European neighbours that they have got to step up? It is not fair on the United Kingdom to take the lion’s share of protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are a compassionate nation, and we stand by everything we do when it comes to providing humanity and protection to individuals who are being persecuted. He has made the point incredibly well on behalf of his constituents, and we will continue—as I will today with the G6, our international counterparts, and across European Union member states—to say that they also need to do more. Until they do, people will continue to die. We all have this collective responsibility.

Anne McLaughlin: There is so much wrong with these proposals that distilling it into two minutes is impossible. What person and what Government with an ounce of compassion or respect for international law would even consider casting vulnerable people off to an island using an offshoring system that, in Australia’s case, has been described by the UN as an affront to “common decency”? Who, with any regard to the rule of law, would limit the right to appeal? The high success rate of asylum appeals clearly shows that the Home Office is getting these decisions wrong too often.
Are we or are we not still a signatory to the UN refugee convention? Is the Home Secretary aware of article 31, which prohibits penalising someone for the way in which they reached a country or, for that matter, arriving so-called illegally? Does she know that nowhere in there does it say that someone cannot transit through another country to get here? That was never the intention of the convention, and to say it is is simply untrue. Does she remember that Nicholas Winton—rightly hailed as a hero for rescuing hundreds of children from Nazi refugee camps—was reported to have forged documents because the Home Office was too slow? Those children would today be classed as illegal and he would be a criminal, but he was a hero, because he recognised that desperate people have no choice, and the same is true today for many who reach our shores.
The Home Secretary should be ashamed to make this statement today. There is nothing pretty about this—it is ugly dog-whistle politics, and I can tell her that the SNP wants no part in it. More importantly, Scotland will not live with the associated shame of this. Scotland recognises its international and moral obligations, but we also recognise that we are prevented by the UK Government from living up to them. I despair for those having to live under this toxic environment, and I will always offer my solidarity, but I will also work even harder to ensure that Scotland votes yes to independence, so that we at least can continue to treat vulnerable people with compassion and dignity.

Priti Patel: First, I refer the hon. Lady to my statement. If she had bothered to listen to it, she would have heard a compelling case for stopping people trafficking, stopping  illegal migration and creating safe and legal routes—something that I would have thought she would warmly welcome.
Secondly, it seems to me that the nationalist party in Scotland needs to do much more to walk the talk when it comes to resettling refugees and working with the Government to house individuals who are fleeing persecution. Sadly, that work is not taking place—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Lady is making some gestures towards me. If she would like to come into the Home Office and have discussions about resettlement schemes and routes in constituencies, I would be more than happy to look at that. Our Ministers would be delighted to welcome her into the Department for that conversation.
Finally, the hon. Lady speaks about our plans not being in line with the refugee convention. Again, I would like to correct her. Our new plan for immigration is in line with our international obligations, including the refugee convention. She will know that the refugee convention does allow for differentiated treatment where, for example—[Interruption.] she can shake her head, but perhaps she would like to listen—refugees have not come directly from a country of persecution.

John Howell: I welcome particularly what my right hon. Friend is proposing to deal with people smuggling, but this is a bigger problem than simply the EU. Council of Europe members are dealing with this right across the Mediterranean and from the middle east. Will she join me in sharing her approach with members of the Council of Europe as an example of what can be done?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I commend him for the work that he has been doing with the Council of Europe. In the past, we have had many conversations about this issue and about people, ways of working and upstream issues around illegal migration. He is right to highlight the issue around the Mediterranean. Too many people have died, tragically, under the most appalling circumstances. I would be more than happy to work with him on how we pursue this further.

Yvette Cooper: Safe Passage reports increasingly long waits for child and teen refugees in camps in Greece and elsewhere to be able to reunite with family in the UK who could care for them since the Dublin and Dubs schemes were ended. Ministers promised us that they would put in place safe legal routes in replacement, but they have not done so, and things are not working. Talking about safe legal routes is not good enough if they do not materialise in practice. Does the Home Secretary not accept that, especially when it comes to vulnerable children and teenagers, a lack of safe legal routes to rejoin family will drive more of them into the arms of dangerous people traffickers and make the situation much worse?

Priti Patel: If the right hon. Lady had heard my statement, she would have heard some figures about those who are being trafficked right now. They are predominantly single men. She makes a very valid and important point, which supports the case for safe and legal routes, around children in particular. This is not just about camps in Greece, and let us not forget, of course, that we have been in a pandemic, which is part  of the reason, as the right hon. Lady knows—we have discussed it at the Home Affairs Committee—and as many hon. Members know, having been reminded of it again and again and again, the Government are absolutely committed, as the record shows, to resettling children, and to family reunion rights.
That is absolutely right, and we are doing that. We are committed to that, but through safe and legal routes. We need to create new routes, and not just from the camps in Greece. The right hon. Lady will know as well—I have been to many myself—that within regions, where there are wars and conflict, we need to create safe and legal routes, and not just from the Mediterranean. Too many people have been smuggled to that Mediterranean route. We need to do much more in-country, and in some of those terrible zones. I hope that she would support this work on that basis.

Felicity Buchan: As my right hon. Friend is aware, many asylum seekers are being housed in hotels in central London, and many hundreds in my constituency. Will she assure me that today’s announcement will speed up the asylum process, that those who are successful will be resettled and those who are not will be quickly returned, and that we can get the numbers in hotels down to zero?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She is well versed in this, in fact, and I thank her for the way she has worked with Ministers, and with me and the Home Office, on this issue of accommodation in her constituency. She and other Members will know that the hotel policy is very much linked to the pandemic, because we have not been able to utilise regular accommodation and dispersal accommodation, and so, along with contingency, we have been using hotels.
There is another point to make here, which is about the processes that we have to look at cases. We are going to change the end-to-end system. There is a reform package in place, including digitalisation of caseworking, faster assessments, and all sorts of work on that basis, so I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.

Alistair Carmichael: Can the Home Secretary tell us when the first refugees will be allowed to enter the UK under her new scheme, and how many will be settled each year?

Priti Patel: The right hon. Gentleman will know that today’s paper, the new immigration plan, is a consultation document. It is a Command Paper, so we are consulting and we will work with everybody who wants to work with us constructively on this. It will be subject to new legislation, and he will know the processes, but we as a Government are absolutely committed. We are already in discussion right now with partner organisations that we can work with on safe and legal routes. That is essential, because 80 million people are displaced in the world, seeking refuge. We have a moral responsibility and an obligation to do the right thing and stand by those who are fleeing persecution, while at the same time working not only other with partners but with other countries to ensure that they raise the bar too.

Jacob Young: This is a fantastic plan to fix our broken asylum system. The plan prioritises help to those most in need with safe and legal routes.  It will stop the deaths in the channel and in lorries of people attempting illegal entry, and deter those who abuse the system and jump the queue, particularly with a new age assessment process. It also introduces new life sentences for the real criminals in all this: the people smugglers. However, my constituents will rightly ask, “When?” Can she outline the timetable for the implementation of the plan, and how they can get involved?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive tone and comments. The plan is subject to consultation. It should be a people’s consultation. The British public, with the publication today, should absolutely join the consultation, and I encourage all Members to get their constituents on board. At the end of the consultation, we will obviously draft a Bill and bring it to Parliament for a second session.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: The 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and its 1967 protocol state that anyone seeking asylum should be able to claim in their intended destination or another safe country, but the Government’s new plan discriminates by distinguishing between people fleeing the same persecution based on their route or on their mode of transport. Does the Home Secretary realise that, under the new plan, trafficked women, LGBTQ people, and those fleeing political and religious persecution will be left with limited options? Rather than expanding safe and legal routes, the plan could actually leave more of those seeking family reunion at the mercy of people smugglers. The plan does not meet the needs of the most vulnerable, so can she explain how she reconciles this obvious misrepresentation of our obligations under international law?

Priti Patel: First of all, I advise the hon. Lady to actually read the immigration plan, because she will see that it is in line with international obligations, including the refugee convention. Secondly, she has spoken about categories of individuals—people seeking to flee who will be persecuted for who they are and for their values. They will, of course, be covered under our safe and legal routes scheme, so she is completely wrong in her misrepresentations.

Alexander Stafford: My constituents and I in Rother Valley welcome strong action in tackling illegal, dangerous migration. I know that my right hon. Friend and her Department are working tirelessly to bring the criminals facilitating the illegal channel crossings to justice, and to tackle this exploitative crime. Does she agree that there is no justifiable reason for migrants to be making this crossing, and putting themselves and our Border Force in danger, when staying in France remains a perfectly safe and right option for them?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I thank him for his question. People should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. That is the point that we are making again and again. They are currently in the hands of people traffickers and smugglers, and are, quite frankly, being duped into false promises and false hope. There is no doubt whatever that we will be  working with our counterparts—I have already mentioned the G6—to pursue this with greater vigour. The principle that my hon. Friend raises is fundamentally correct.

Paul Blomfield: This cynical announcement is built on the availability of safe and legal routes. This morning, the Home Secretary claimed, “We have safe and legal routes, and we have a programme called the Syrian refugee resettlement scheme”. But she will know that the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme actually finished at the end of February, as its quota was filled. There are no details of how the new UK resettlement scheme will work, so could the Home Secretary tell us how many people it will take, explain how it will operate and outline, for example, the process available to a refugee from what is currently the world’s worst conflict, in Yemen?

Priti Patel: I will not take any lectures from hon. Gentleman about resettlement schemes, when this Government have successfully resettled 25,000 people through that resettlement scheme—[Interruption.] He shakes his head, but it is true. I have made it quite clear that we are in discussion with partner agencies already. That work is under way. He can shake his head and be as dismissive as he chooses to be, but if he bothered to read the new immigration plan, he would see the details of exactly how we will start to introduce new safe and legal routes through legislation.

Richard Fuller: Yarl’s Wood detention centre in my constituency was set up under a Labour Government in 2001, and is a manifestation of the historical weaknesses of our immigration processes and, in particular, how they have failed women. As my right hon. Friend knows, women asylum seekers are more likely to be individually targeted as victims of gender-based violence, forced marriage—sometimes to very powerful people—or rape as an instrument of war. Will my right hon. Friend please assure me that her reforms will provide a fairer and more effective assessment of such cases?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is why we have to fix the system. We are currently not able to safeguard and protect those who absolutely need that help and support. The categories that the plan covers include women—women who have been treated abhorrently, quite frankly, in conflict zones, as well as those who have been trafficked and who have had had the most awful crimes undertaken against them. Some of these women are also used in modern-day slavery; how we protect victims of that is also a feature of the new immigration plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we will definitely be looking at all of that.

Joanna Cherry: Now that the Home Secretary is planning on deporting even more asylum seekers than previously, will she address the lack of transparency in the content and scope of the UK Government’s existing returns and readmission agreements, as well as those under negotiation? Will she give an undertaking to remedy that lack of clarity and to publish the agreements for scrutiny? Will she also confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to send people back to countries where there is a real risk that they will face torture or inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment?

Priti Patel: I am always interested in the hon. and learned Lady’s comments, particularly in the light of the way in which she caucuses and campaigns against flight removals, for example, as we have seen previously when we have tried to remove foreign national offenders—some of the most murderous people, with awful criminal records—from our country. Of course I can guarantee that we will not be removing people to the parts of the world to which she has referred, but I would also say that we are clear on the removal processes that we have, the categories of individuals we remove, and the reasons why we remove them from the UK. They are predominantly those who have failed in their claims, but alongside them are many foreign national offenders, who simply should not remain in our country.

Jonathan Gullis: May I start by saying that I, along with the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, warmly welcome this new plan to fix our broken system? Currently, the UK is one of the only countries in Europe not to use scientific age assessment to determine a person’s age when they enter the country. I am sure many hon. Friends and Members from across this House will have heard the stories of fully grown adults coming to the UK but claiming asylum as children. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that this statement will solve a very serious safeguarding risk for our young people?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend raises such an important question. It is sobering, because over the years we have seen too many cases of adults posing as children. That is unscrupulous behaviour, and I say that because of the safeguarding risks that my hon. Friend highlights. He is right about the UK being one of the only countries; in Europe, they use scientific age assessment methods to determine a person’s age. Between 2016 and 2020, where age has been disputed and resolved 54% of the people involved were found to be adults, which presents a very serious safeguarding risk to our young people.

Ruth Cadbury: This Government have form for lack of compassion towards those who have fled horrors that we can only imagine, from abandoning the Dubs child refugee scheme to the broken system that is leaving asylum seekers in limbo for months, if not possibly years, and their having to go to food banks because even the minimal support they are entitled to often is not arriving. So how can my constituents have any faith in this Government and whether they have one iota of compassion?

Priti Patel: As I have said, I am simply not going to take lectures about the lack of compassion from the hon. Lady or the Labour party at all. I have been abundantly clear about the reasons we have to tackle this system. She may be interested to know that there is not a single solution here; this is about end-to-end reform of the system. I know it might be an uncomfortable truth for her, but this does actually mean tackling the backlog of cases, tackling the people smugglers and stopping the criminal trade in human misery. I am only sorry that she cannot see that, because the way in which we demonstrate compassion is by fixing the system and supporting those who are in desperate need to come here.

Ben Bradley: I welcome the measures my right hon. Friend has laid out today, which will be warmly welcomed by my constituents, who just want to see a fairer system, both for people in genuine need and for UK taxpayers. The most obvious example of that unfairness is the exploitation of people who are paying human traffickers just to be pushed out into the channel in a dinghy, particularly when they are coming from a safe country. Will she confirm that these measures are intended to ensure that these crossings are no longer worth the risk and that she will be t increasing penalties available to law enforcement to be able to tackle people smugglers head on?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; as I have said in my statement, we need to break this trade. That is vital, because people are being used in such an appalling way and human misery is being created. I have outlined already the increases in sentences that we will be looking at—not only sentences for facilitators and people smugglers, but the new powers we will be looking to give Border Force.

Rachael Maskell: Immigration is the most defining issue of a Government’s character: do they reach out to protect the most challenged people on earth or turn in on themselves? When a Government do not secure safe passage for people seeking asylum to come to the UK, criminal gangs will exploit them. Will the Home Secretary update the House on what steps she is taking to ensure that her policy is not just about building higher walls for people to climb over, but opening safer doors for people to walk through?

Priti Patel: I suggest that the hon. Lady reads the “New Plan for Immigration”, because it is spelt out in there.

Edward Leigh: Our present asylum system is a complete joke. Every young man living in misery in a failed state knows that if he manages to reach our shores, the chances of his being deported are virtually zero. There is no point in introducing more and more penalties and laws unless we are prepared to deport people. Is the Home Secretary prepared to do what Prime Minister Abbott of Australia did? He ensured that all arrivals were put in a secure location and left there until their claims were assessed and then either deported or allowed to stay, and there are now no unsafe arrivals in Australia, no deaths and no criminal gangs. That policy works. Is the Home Secretary prepared to be really tough in order to be kind?

Priti Patel: As I have outlined already for my right hon. Friend, this proposal is a long-term plan and it needs to be addressed in the component parts that I have outlined. For example, the legal system that we have here, which frustrates deportations and removals, is a very different system from the one in Australia. This is a fair but firm system because we have to be firm in terms of removing those that have exhausted all their rights and should not be here. This equally applies to foreign national offenders, which is part of the reason that I have outlined already in the new immigration plan.

Margaret Ferrier: The Home Secretary has spoken of efforts to strike agreements with countries outside Europe, with  the intention of returning legitimate asylum seekers simply because of their method of arrival in the UK. It is likely that those countries will be the same ones that we will seek trade deals with in the post-Brexit environment, so will the Home Secretary tell us what discussions she has had with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for International Trade about how those third-country agreements will impact on trade negotiations?

Priti Patel: Let me assure the hon. Lady that this is not just a Home Office policy. This is a policy across Government. She will already have heard me speak about the Ministry of Justice and resetting the judicial framework, and we will work with the FCDO on removals. That is always something that we have done in the Home Office, and we will continue to work with them when it comes to our bilateral agreements on returns and removals.

Richard Holden: Like the overwhelming majority of my North West Durham constituents, I want to see genuine refugees protected with safer legal routes so that we do not see people dying in the channel or in lorries, but my constituents also want to see the vultures—the people smugglers who peddle in human misery and the lawyers who spin out cases at the cost of hundreds of millions of pounds to the tax- payer every year—stopped. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this plan will help genuine refugees and also take on those who seek to abuse the current system?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When he looks at the new plan, he will see a chapter in the policy paper on the judicial reset that is required when it comes to the immigration tribunal, immigration bail and the appeals process. We will streamline that and we will also deal with the wasted costs that British taxpayers are paying for. We want to use that resource to ensure that the money is going to those who are in need and not just to those who are gaming the system.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I agree that those seeking asylum must do so in the appropriate way and that those who smuggle illegal immigrants must face the full extent of the justice system. However, I have a concern over the role of children in these situations. A child has no say over whether they are brought over legally or illegally, so will the Home Secretary outline what special circumstances will be in place when it comes to children and minors, who are totally innocent of deceit or of trying to play the system?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman makes such an important point about vulnerability, and children in particular. We need to find the right way in which we can safeguard them, and that is exactly the work that we are going to undertake with partner agencies to look at bringing them not just from camps in Europe, because Europe is a safe continent, but in particular from those parts of the world where we are seeing the most appalling levels of conflict, instability and persecution.

Greg Smith: I very much welcome the package of measures that my right hon. Friend has brought forward today, particularly the maximum life  sentences for people smugglers. So that there can be no wriggle room in the justice system when these abhorrent criminals face justice, will she also look at introducing a very high minimum sentence so that the message goes out loud and clear that this is unacceptable and that those people will face the full force of the law in this country?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because we have to have the right sanctions and deterrents in place so that these people smugglers’ model is broken up. Of course, that will be part of the consultation and I will absolutely work with my hon. Friend and others on the whole proposal.

Philippa Whitford: It is shocking to see some of the overcrowded and squalid accommodation, including in military barracks, that is used to house asylum seekers. Safe accommodation for vulnerable people is critical in any compassionate and effective asylum system, but particularly in the middle of a pandemic. How does the Home Secretary plan, in her reforms, to improve the quality of housing for people seeking asylum?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady will absolutely know that in terms of the contingency accommodation that we have had to use because of the pandemic we have looked at all sorts of options. On accommodation going forward, we use dispersed accommodation, and I come back to the point about working with local authorities, which will be part of our discussions and consultations going forward. It is vital that we grow that footprint and I would be more than happy for the hon. Lady to work with us in coming up with alternative proposals on accommodation.

Tim Loughton: I warmly welcome the proposals announced today, as will, I know, my constituents and those of the other south- coast constituencies in particular. I especially welcome the distinction between those people who are wealthy enough to pay to be illegally smuggled into this country and those genuine refugees who go through the right processes.
On safe and legal routes, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the successor to Dublin will be at least as generous as Dublin in respect of the relatives it covers, and that the process will be much more speedy in getting people who are deemed to have a place in the UK here as soon as possible? Will she also consider a Dubs II scheme? The Dubs scheme was so successful in rescuing genuine endangered children from danger spots around the world—it worked so well.

Priti Patel: I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further. We need to get this right in terms of safeguarding children, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Not only that, but we need to learn the lessons of previous schemes and look at how we can strengthen some of the aspects around resettlement, for example, that may not have been strong enough. I would be more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it.

Mick Whitley: Instead of taking action to fix a broken and uncaring immigration system, the Government seem intent on abandoning  their long-standing humanitarian obligations, including the 1951 UN refugee convention. Does the Home Secretary accept that the Government’s failure to improve the range of safe and legal routes to the UK will in fact push more people into the hands of people traffickers and increase the likelihood of tragedy in the English channel?

Priti Patel: I am quite surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s statements and comments, bearing in mind that he has not even had a look at the plan itself—that is quite clear to see—because to do nothing is not an option, because people are dying. The proposals are in line with the refugee convention, within international law and within the ECHR, so I recommend that rather than shaking his head the hon. Gentleman reads the proposals and joins us in wanting to stop illegal people smuggling and to save lives.

Matt Vickers: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination to prevent illegal crossings and tackle the scourge of people smuggling. Does she agree that there is no justifiable reason for migrants to cross the channel and put lives at risk when France remains a perfectly safe option for them?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is absolutely the point: France and other countries across the EU member states are safe countries. People are not fleeing persecution in those countries and they should and could claim asylum in those countries. That is effectively what we need to work harder to achieve.

Christine Jardine: In her statement, the Secretary of State said:
“We celebrate those who have come to the UK lawfully and have helped to build Britain.”
Will she assure us that while those people are awaiting the Home Office processing their claims, they are enabled to contribute to the economy of the United Kingdom by working and paying income tax and national insurance, rather than having to subsist on the meagre handouts that barely allow them to eat?

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady will be well aware of the rules in place for asylum seekers currently in the UK. If I may say so, I remind the House that we are in a pandemic, so there are restrictions in terms of accommodation, movements and things of that nature. If the hon. Lady would like to be refreshed on those rules, I would be more than happy to drop her a line.

Elliot Colburn: One of the most common things that I hear on the doorsteps in Carshalton and Wallington is frustration about an immigration and asylum system that simply does not work, so I know that people will warmly welcome the firm but fair plan set out by my right hon. Friend. Will she assure me that this plan will both tackle the criminal gangs that exploit vulnerable people and help to reduce the dangerous attempts to cross the channel in small boats, in favour of safe and legal routes?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know he has raised concerns about this issue in the past. We have to break up the criminal trade in human misery. We will continue to do everything possible through the reforms that we are proposing today, which will go to public consultation, and then we want to bring in new legislation to achieve the outcomes that we are outlining.

Andrew Gwynne: I have always believed that we have a duty to meet our international obligations in a fair, firm and humanitarian way, but the current system is failing on all three of those. It is important that we draw the distinction between legal migration, refugees, victims of people trafficking, and illegal immigration: they are all very different things. The Home Office has announced plans to introduce tougher age assessments. Can the Home Secretary confirm to the House that these new assessments will be sensitive to disabilities, trauma and medical needs, as well as being carried out with dignity and respect?

Priti Patel: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points about not just age assessments, but the categories of vulnerability that we are speaking about. We are launching a consultation today that he will be aware of, and it is absolutely right that we give all due consideration to the different needs of individuals, as well as the circumstances and the situations that they are fleeing.

Scott Benton: Never before have we had a Home Secretary who has shown such determination to finally get a grip of our failed and broken asylum system, and she deserves immense credit for this statement. The residents of Blackpool are sick and tired of the delaying tactics used by left-wing human rights lawyers to prevent the lawful removal of failed asylum seekers. As a nation, we need to do far more to ensure that those who do not have a right to stay in the UK are deported. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that the measures outlined today will help to achieve that?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. This is a very significant part of the frustrations with the system, and in fact, far too many predecessors in the Home Office have spoken about this as well. The reforms that we are outlining will mean a reset of the judicial frame- work around not just illegal migration, but immigration: courts, bails, tribunals, and legal aid. We absolutely need to grip this and bring about changes that will give justice to individuals who need the protection and support that we want to give them.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today, and for responding to questions from the 30 Members on the call list. We will now suspend for three minutes for the usual arrangements.
Sitting suspended.

Liverpool City Council

Robert Jenrick: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Liverpool City Council.
Merseyside police have been carrying out an investigation involving a significant link with Liverpool City Council. Last year, this led to arrests on suspicion of fraud, bribery, corruption, misconduct in public office and witness intimidation. On 17 December, I informed the House that, additionally, persuasive evidence had been presented to me regarding the council’s planning, highways, regeneration, property management functions and associated audit and governance arrangements.
In light of that evidence, I commissioned Max Caller to conduct a best value inspection of the council. I want to thank Max and his assistant inspectors, Vivienne Geary and Mervyn Greer, for their thorough and evidence-based review. I have today placed a copy of their report in the Library of the House.
The report paints a deeply concerning picture of mismanagement, the breakdown of scrutiny and accountability, and a dysfunctional culture, putting the spending of public funds at risk and undermining the city’s economic development. The report identifies multiple apparent failures by Liverpool City Council in complying with its best value duty. This includes: a failure of proper and due process across planning and regeneration, including a worrying lack of record keeping—indeed, documentation had sometimes been created retrospectively, discarded in skips, or even destroyed—a lack of scrutiny and oversight across highways, including dysfunctional management practices, no coherent business plan, and the awarding of dubious contracts; a failure of proper process relating to property management, including compliance with the council’s own standing orders, leading to a continued failure to correctly value land and assets, meaning that taxpayers frequently lost out. When selling land, the report states that Liverpool City Council’s best interests were not on the agenda. There were also poor governance arrangements for council-operated companies and an overall environment of intimidation, described as one in which
“the only way to survive was to do what was requested without asking too many questions or applying normal professional standards.”
The review finds that there was a fundamental failure by members to understand and appreciate the basic standards governing those in public service and, with no regular ethics or standards committee and no means of monitoring complaints effectively, there was no established way to hold those falling below those acceptable standards to account.
As a whole, the report is unequivocal that Liverpool City Council has failed in numerous respects to comply with its best value duty. It concludes that the council consistently failed to meet its statutory and managerial responsibilities and that the pervasive culture appeared to be “rule avoidance”. It further concludes that changes need to be radical and delivered at pace, and that there was no confidence that the council itself would be able to implement these to any sensible timescale. There may also be further issues of which we are not yet aware, and the report is careful not to speak to matters that might compromise the ongoing police investigation.
I want to underline that the report is not a verdict on all the staff working at Liverpool City Council. In fact, it commends the hard work and dedication of many. The report is also clear that the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and statutory officers have taken positive remedial steps, and I wish to thank Tony for his dedication and service. Neither does it comment on the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, Mayor Steve Rotheram, or other councils in Merseyside.
Despite the good work undertaken by Mr Reeves, there is a clear picture showing that there has been a serious breakdown of governance at the council. If unchecked, it will allow improper conduct to persist, further undermining public confidence and putting public services at risk. It will damage the city’s ability to attract investment from reputable developers and investors for regeneration, or to take full advantage of new economic opportunities, such as the recent successful application for freeport status.
Expressed in formal terms, I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best value duty. Therefore, I need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end, in line with the procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am writing today to the council asking it to make representations, both on the inspector’s report and on a proposed intervention package. This package is centred on putting in place commissioners, whom I will appoint to exercise certain and limited functions of the council as required for a minimum of three years.
I am also proposing that the council will, under the oversight of the commissioners, prepare and implement an improvement plan. This would require the following provisions: within six months, to approve a suitable officer structure providing sufficient resources to deliver the council’s functions in an effective way, including the improvement plan and its monitoring and reporting; within 12 months, to review and change the council’s constitution; within 24 months, to conduct a review of the roles and case for continuing with each subsidiary company of Liverpool City Council; to create a detailed structure and strategy for the highways function; to establish a plan to deliver an effective file management system; to implement a programme of cultural change, so both members and officers understand their roles, and so that the council’s activities are regulated and governed, and breaches are rectified swiftly; and to require the consent of commissioners before either member or officer level agrees heads of terms for any property transaction and subsequent consent before any legally binding commitment is entered into.
I also propose to direct that prior agreement of commissioners must be obtained to any dismissal or suspension of statutory officers or the assistant director of governance, audit and assurance, or equivalent. Furthermore, any appointments to positions designated as a statutory officer or the head of internal audit must be conducted under the direction of, and to the satisfaction of, the commissioners.
I hope and expect Liverpool City Council to take the lead in this path to improvement. However, given the gravity of the inspection findings, I must consider what would happen if the council fails to deliver the necessary changes at the necessary speed. I am consequently proposing to direct the transfer of all executive functions associated with regeneration, highways and property  management at the authority to the commissioners. These are for use should the council not satisfy the commissioners in their improvement processes. As I say, I hope it will not be necessary for the commissioners to use those powers, but they must, in my view, be empowered to do so to deliver the reforms that are required. The commissioners will report to me at six-monthly intervals on progress being made.
The report also considers the impact of the council’s cycle of elections, where every year is an election year, concluding that this system reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. It recommends that the council should move to “all-out elections”, and for the council’s size to be reconsidered. Accordingly, I am also proposing to use my powers under the Local Government Act 2000 to provide for Liverpool City Council to hold whole-council elections for the first time from 2023. That will be in addition to proposals for a reduced number of councillors, elected on single-member wards, which the report also recommends. I believe it would be preferable to move to a single-member ward system at the earliest available opportunity.
I am now seeking representations from the council on the report and the decisions I am proposing to take by 24 May. The forthcoming elections will proceed as planned, and the Liverpool City Mayor will be elected on 6 May; the cabinet will then have time to provide its views. If I decide to intervene along the lines I have set out today, I will then make the necessary statutory directions under the 1999 Act and appoint the commissioners, and I will update the House on any conclusions in due course.
This is a rare occasion when central intervention is required. In addition to the measures I propose today, the Government will work closely with the political, the business and the cultural leadership of the city and with the wider region, including with Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool city region. We will do all we can to support the city as it recovers from the covid-19 pandemic, and to give confidence to those who want to invest in the city, to contract with the council and to do business in Liverpool.
As the son and grandson of Liverpudlians, I know Liverpool and I appreciate the sense of humour, the loyalty and the warmth of its residents. I also understand the city’s independent spirit, so I am clear that we are embarking on a partnership—to mend a politics that for too long has been rooted in a pervasive and rotten culture.
I am hopeful that this is the start of a new chapter for Liverpool City Council, because in all of this it is the residents of Liverpool who are being let down, whose regeneration is being undermined, whose taxpayers’ money is being wasted and whose city is being besmirched, rather than cited with municipal pride.
Despite the rare cases like Liverpool City Council, as a whole, councils in this country have a good record of transparency, probity, scrutiny and accountability. It is a reputation worth protecting. I will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold the good name of local government and to weed out practices that do it down. I commend this statement to the House.

Steve Reed: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and the report and, indeed, for his openness with me throughout the process.
This report raises grave and serious concerns about decision making in key functions of Liverpool City Council. All councils are under an obligation to meet their best value duty to ensure value for money at all times. In these respects, Liverpool City Council has been found severely wanting. Labour, both here and our leadership at the city council, accepts this report in full. The council will respond to the letter from the Secretary of State in detail, but we support his intention to appoint commissioners, not at this stage to run the council, as he says, but to advise and support elected representatives in strengthening the council’s systems.
This is a measured and appropriate approach. I want to reassure people in Liverpool that it does not mean that Government Ministers are coming in to run their city directly. This is not, as some would put it, a Tory takeover. It is about the Government appointing independent people of the highest professional standing to help the council improve as quickly as possible, and intervening directly only if the council’s elected leaders fail to implement their own improvement plan.
Investigations are currently under way into matters raised in the report and I will not pre-empt them. I do, however, want to reiterate my party’s absolute commitment to protecting the public interest at all times and upholding the highest possible standards in public life. Given the concerns raised in this report, the general secretary of the Labour party intends to appoint a senior figure to lead a review, and reassure the people of Liverpool that the Labour party takes these concerns seriously and will take action against anyone in our ranks who was involved in wrongdoing of any kind. Our councillors in Liverpool have already met senior Labour councillors from other parts of the country who will support them in strengthening the city council’s defences against any risk of fraud.
The overwhelming majority of councillors and frontline staff will be shocked by what they read in this report. As the report and the Secretary of State have made clear, the severe institutional weaknesses identified do not obscure the outstanding work they have all done together over many years. The Prime Minister was right to praise the council’s impressive work in getting the city through the pandemic, and I want to add my thanks to everyone who continues to play a part in that. In particular, the report praises the council’s chief executive, Mr Tony Reeves, and I offer my support to him and to the acting mayor, Councillor Wendy Simon, for the work they have already started to put things right. I would also like to put on record my thanks to Mr Max Caller and his team for putting this very important report together.
This is a moment for change, and I know that everyone who cares about the great city of Liverpool and its wonderful people will accept this report and use it to strengthen the council for the future.

Robert Jenrick: Can I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks he has just made and for the way in which we have worked together over recent months? He has been most helpful and constructive, and I hope that can continue. I thank him on behalf of the Government for the remarks he has made with respect to the Labour party and the Labour group on Liverpool City Council, which are extremely welcome. The step we have taken today is unusual, and it is better to do it in a cross-party   way. We all share the same interests, which are the delivery of public services, ensuring that the people of Liverpool get the value for money and the council that they deserve, and ensuring that the city can attract the inward investment, regeneration and good-quality development that it certainly needs and that we want to see delivered as we come out of the pandemic.
The hon. Gentleman was right—I thank him again—to highlight the praise for the chief executive, Tony Reeves, who has done an outstanding job. In my remarks earlier, I praised his conduct and that of the other statutory officers at the council. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that this report focuses on particular functions of Liverpool City Council and does not comment on the wider delivery of public services in the city by the council. There is no reason to question the delivery of adult services, children’s services or other important functions that people in the city rely on. He is also right to praise the work of many people in Liverpool, including within the city council, in their response to the covid-19 pandemic.
I would underline my remarks once again that this is a report about Liverpool City Council. It is not about the neighbouring councils across Merseyside, and neither is it any reflection on the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, Steve Rotheram, to whom I extend my thanks once again for his co-operation and support. It is right that we take this action, and I hope that we can continue to work together on it. None of us does this lightly. Localism is our objective, but localism does require local accountability, transparency and robust scrutiny, and that I hope is what we can now achieve.

Nigel Evans: I would just like to say before I call any other Members that, although a number of individuals are under investigation, I understand that there have been no charges. There is therefore no sub judice involved, but I would caution Members not to compromise any of the ongoing investigations in anything they may or may not say.

Andy Carter: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and welcome the steps he has outlined in relation to Liverpool City Council. I welcome the steps he is taking to preserve the good name of local government, too. I regularly hear from constituents with concerns about the level of commercial activity that councils are now undertaking. Does he agree with me that some of the transactions are incredibly complicated and well beyond what councils would have traditionally been involved in, and that external audit and public scrutiny need to be reviewed and greatly improved to protect taxpayers’ interests?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We asked a lot of local councils, and we will do so once again as we come out of the pandemic. We want them to be regenerating town and city centres and investing in new housing, but we want them to do so carefully and not to invest in risky investments or transfer toxic assets from the private sector to the public sector. We have taken action as a Government through reforming the Public Works Loan Board. We are providing further guidance to local councils, including through the work of the report we commissioned from Sir Tony Redmond, to ensure that the sector improves the way it handles  this situation. The allegations made against Liverpool City Council are of a different magnitude to the ones that we have seen in other parts of the country, so I do not want to draw direct comparisons, but there is more work to be done with some other local authorities as well.

Clive Betts: This is clearly a very serious situation. It is obviously a very major step to take powers away from elected representatives, so I really appreciate and accept the proportionate and correct response from the Secretary of State, as well as from the shadow Secretary of State. I also appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments about the many hard-working staff in Liverpool, including the chief executive, who bear no blame for this crisis, and his comments about the generally excellent performance of local government as a whole. The Secretary of State has set out very clearly his list of requirements from the city council and by when he expects them to be met. How will monitoring against these requirements be undertaken and how will Parliament be updated about them? Of course it goes without saying that if there is anything the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee can do to assist in that process, we stand ready to do so.

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee. I would be happy to work with him should he require any further information or wish to discuss this matter further. If we go ahead with the proposal that I have made today, then the commissioners, once appointed, would report to me on a six-monthly basis and I would be happy to keep the House informed of the information they provide to me. We will ensure that there is an improvement plan in place for the city that is produced by the newly elected Mayor and their cabinet and supported by Liverpool City Council, but advised and guided by the commissioners. Then it will be absolutely essential that that plan is delivered. It will be for all of us in this House, and particularly for those Members of Parliament representing parts of Liverpool, to hold the council to account for the successful delivery of the plan. Our objective is to restore public confidence in the council as quickly as possible so that residents can have confidence that they have a well-functioning council in all respects, and so that all the legitimate businesses, developers and people wishing to contract with the council have complete confidence that Liverpool is a city open for business and they can work to drive up the city’s prosperity as we come out of the pandemic.

Philip Hollobone: I praise both Max Caller, who is a superb inspector, and the Secretary of State’s decision to send in commissioners. Although the problems in Liverpool City Council are far worse, in 2018 Max Caller was sent into Northamptonshire to do a best value inspection, and subsequently the Government sent in commissioners. Since that point, under the leadership of Commissioner Tony McArdle and the new political leadership of Councillor Matt Golby, the situation in Northamptonshire County Council has been transformed and its performance has been raised beyond all expectations. Is it not the case that if councillors and officers in Liverpool City Council respond positively to the challenge set to them by the Government, public services in the city can be raised once again to the standards expected of them?

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. My predecessors have used their powers of intervention very sparingly. They have done so on a small number of occasions, in Doncaster, Rotherham, Tower Hamlets, Hackney and Northamptonshire. Each occasion was very different, but in most of those cases the intervention has proved successful and has turned councils around. The commissioners will behave sensitively, support the elected leadership of Liverpool City Council, and ensure that confidence is restored, public services are delivered properly, and taxpayer money is spent wisely. This now requires leadership from the politicians in Liverpool—those who will be elected in the local council elections to come. I look forward to working with them, and if we do appoint commissioners, I expect the commissioners to work with them constructively and productively at all times.

Ian Byrne: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I will read the report in full today when I receive it. It has been a great honour to work alongside many Liverpool councillors and council staff who worked so tirelessly to protect the people of Liverpool before and during the pandemic and, indeed, who have been recognised for that work in this Chamber. Will the Secretary of State assure my great city and its people that this crucial work, on which so many of our constituents rely, will continue and that these vital services will be both resourced and protected?

Robert Jenrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. I share his thanks and his praise for many of the staff of Liverpool City Council, and for the good work over the year done by the wider health and social care sector across the region, which the Health Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have praised on many occasions. We want to ensure they continue to have resources, and we want all of government to see this as a moment in which, far from stepping away, we should redouble our efforts to support the city through a potentially difficult period.
I will be convening my Cabinet and ministerial colleagues in the coming days to reiterate that message and to ask them to do even more to support Liverpool. There has been good news in recent weeks, including from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that Liverpool was successful in its application for freeport status. That is just one example of good news and investment that I hope will take the city forward in the years to come.

Richard Holden: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. It is clear that too many senior people at Liverpool City Council failed that great city during this pandemic, but it is not just Liverpool. Nottingham City Council has given its councillors a bumper pay rise, even after bankrupting the council. Durham County Council, Labour run for 102 years, is spending £50 million-plus on a new county hall on a floodplain and, at the height of the pandemic last year, it approved a new 3,500 square feet roof terrace for itself. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows it is not only in Liverpool that the Labour party has its priorities wrong and Labour councillors are putting themselves above the people they serve?

Robert Jenrick: All councils have a fundamental duty to their residents to provide good value for money. At the heart of our decision to intervene in Liverpool, and to commission Max Caller and his report, was persuasive evidence that it was falling below that standard, and that is what Max Caller has indeed concluded today. All councils need to ensure they are providing good-quality public services and are taking care with the money entrusted to them. I hope we can correct the situation in Liverpool, which has now gone on for too long, and that other councils across the country in different situations also take note and take particular care when spending the public’s money.

Paula Barker: I also pay tribute to the incredible staff at Liverpool City Council at this very difficult time. I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House today, and I hope he will agree to meet the five Members representing Liverpool at the earliest opportunity.
I, for one, do not doubt the seriousness of the issues that have been raised today, and I look forward to receiving a copy of the Caller report. That public resources have been put at risk is deeply worrying, because resources are needed for investment in the vital services on which my constituents depend, even more so at a time when funding has been cut year on year. Will the Secretary of State take this chance to reassure my wonderful city, and anyone concerned, that commissioners will be totally independent and their focus will be on working in the interests of the people of Liverpool?

Robert Jenrick: I certainly can. The commissioners will be appointed by me and will report to me. Their task is to support the city and its elected leadership to ensure that a good and credible improvement plan is brought forward and implemented as quickly as possible, and that the mistakes, errors and omissions of the past are put right, so that confidence can be restored to the city and the hon. Lady’s constituents can know and have confidence that they have a well-functioning city council and we can move forward as swiftly as possible.
I share the hon. Lady’s support for the city. It is a great city, and it deserves a good, functioning city council, which is exactly what we want to achieve.

John Howell: Does this sad but very welcome action not send a firm indication to all councils that we will step in where irregularities over best value, particularly in planning, occur? Will my right hon. Friend comment on his remarks about the need for whole-council elections, and does that mark a change across the whole country, in trying to rid ourselves of those councils that go for elections every year?

Robert Jenrick: The report that we have laid today makes two specific recommendations with regard to Liverpool City Council, as I outlined earlier, first recommending that we move as swiftly as possible to whole-council elections, and secondly recommending single-member wards. That recommendation will, subject to the views of those who come forward over the coming weeks, be implemented, but I agree that it has wider application. A thread that we have seen in a number of failed councils has been a lack of scrutiny and accountability for members where they have been in multi-member wards and where having elections time and again in  thirds has led to a lack of scrutiny and a lack of focus in the council. I would like to see more councils take note of these recommendations and implement them.

Kim Johnson: I am a very proud Scouser, but listening to the Secretary of State read the contents of this damning report makes me angry, as it will the whole city when the report is made public. But we are a resilient city, and we will fight back from this. The city deserves a well-run council, with stronger, more transparent governance procedures, that is more able to manage public finances. Important steps have been made to right the wrongs at the council by the current chief executive, Tony Reeves, and the acting Mayor. Can the Secretary of State confirm the timetable for the proposed intervention by commissioners? Will that be reviewed and monitored, and reduced if progress is made at speed? What role will the chief executive and the elected councillors who have supported our community so well during this crisis play in rebuilding the public’s trust?

Robert Jenrick: Like her fellow Liverpool colleagues, I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which spoke. The timetable for the period ahead is that the report is now available for members of the public, colleagues in Parliament and the council to review and consider at length. The council has until 24 May to revert to me with comments and representations. We have chosen a longer than normal period, reflecting the fact that the local elections will now take place, to give the new council and the newly elected Mayor the time after the local elections have concluded to meet to consider this and make those representations to me. Once those representations have been made, I will consider them carefully and decide whether to proceed with the proposal that I have outlined today or to change it in any way, and I will then revert to the House with my final decision. If that is to appoint commissioners, we will set out the process and the names of the individuals I have chosen.

Mike Wood: The allegations that my right hon. Friend describes will be familiar to many residents of Sandwell borough. As a former local councillor, I know how important it is that elected members are able to both guide and scrutinise officers. Does he think that Liverpool city councillors have been unable to do that in this instance due to lack of powers, lack of capacity or lack of capability?

Robert Jenrick: I recommend that my hon. Friend reads the report by Max Caller, which sets out his observations, having spent the last three months working in and around the council and having dozens, if not hundreds, of conversations and interviews with councillors and officers. He concludes that the council needs to raise its game substantially in respect of some officers and also some elected members; that there needs to be much greater scrutiny and accountability; that there needs to be much greater care in the way that those elected members manage public money and how they manage directly owned and operated companies that the council has chosen to use; and that it needs a greater sense of vision for the future and a business plan for its activities. There is a great deal of work ahead for those  individuals who are elected in May, and I hope that they will show the leadership that is required to turn the city around. It will be a big task, but we are here to support them.

Damien Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. As he knows, my constituency of Southport, although not in the Liverpool city area, is part of the Liverpool city region. Given our proximity, this situation is causing alarm to my constituents. Will he take further action to allay any fears that my constituents have about our own local authority, and will he meet me to discuss better scrutiny arrangements for local authorities such as mine to give further reassurance to constituents?

Robert Jenrick: I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I should have said in answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) that I would of course be happy to meet Liverpool city Members too. I believe that they met the Local Government Minister earlier today, but I would be happy to have a further conversation with them. I should say again that this report is specific to Liverpool City Council—it is not a comment on the neighbouring councils that make up the Liverpool city region—but I understand that my hon. Friend may have concerns about his own council, and I would be happy to discuss those.

Dan Carden: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for their statements. We all appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Clearly, we need to see real change and robust new safeguards that guarantee transparency and accountability, but the people of Liverpool must be part of that process. This week, I have been contacted by local people concerned that sending commissioners into Liverpool amounts to a takeover by Whitehall, so will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to outline to my constituents how their voice and their democratic rights will be respected?

Robert Jenrick: The elections will go ahead in May, and they will see the election of a new directly elected Mayor. They will also see new councillors elected to the council, and the cabinet appointed by the new Mayor. It is important, first, that those individuals make representations to me about the report and what they want to see happen. Depending on the ultimate course of action that I take, having listened carefully to those views, if we do choose to appoint commissioners, as I have proposed today, those commissioners will be going to Liverpool to stand behind the elected Mayor, the cabinet and the elected members of the city council—not to tell them what to do but to guide and support them.
I very much hope that the members elected by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will rise to the occasion and drive the change and reform that is needed on the city council, and that the commissioners will never need to exercise their powers. We have given them the authority to act should they need to, given the seriousness of some of the allegations, but it is not our hope or expectation that those powers will be exercised.

Diana R. Johnson: As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed),  said, my party supports the seven Nolan principles on standards in public life, be it in town halls or Whitehall, underpinning the councillors’ code of conduct and the ministerial code. The Standards Board, which promoted high ethical standards in local government and oversaw the nationally imposed code of conduct, was abandoned in 2012 by the Secretary of State’s Government. Considering today’s statement, does he think that was a mistake?

Robert Jenrick: A significant piece of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life with respect to the way ethics and standards are applied in local government at all levels, from parish councils, where unfortunately we do, very rarely but on occasion, see issues of misconduct, bullying and harassment, right the way up to larger councils of the scale of Liverpool City Council. I am carefully considering the committee’s views on how we should proceed, and we will respond in due course, setting out the Government’s view and the actions that we are minded to take to ensure that there are always correct processes and always routes for redress, regardless of who is at stake. I think that will provide many of the answers to the right hon. Lady’s questions.

Christian Wakeford: The report outlined by my right hon. Friend mentioned a number of very serious failings by Liverpool City Council over many years. Does he agree that, in addition to the steps being taken to improve the council’s financial position, an entirely new culture needs to be embedded at the council that puts residents and Liverpool first?

Robert Jenrick: Yes, the report is clear that a major cultural change is required at the council. Mr Caller concludes that that will require radical change both by some members and some officers, and I hope that those steps will now be taken. They are absolutely essential if we are going to restore confidence in the council. That is our objective. I am sure that it is the objective of most reasonable people in the city of Liverpool, and we will be working together to achieve it.

Rachel Hopkins: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Having served as a local councillor, I have seen the positive difference that local government can make in our communities, despite tough financial circumstances. I know that there will be thousands of councillors and council officers going above and beyond during the pandemic—including in Liverpool—who will be shocked and saddened by the report’s findings and today’s announcement. Would the Secretary of State agree that today’s announcement is the exception, not the norm, for local government, so that we can reassure those from across all our political parties who are standing for election in May and who want to do the right thing by serving their local communities to the best of their abilities?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point; it is one that I made in my opening remarks. This is a rare intervention. Interventions of this nature have been made on only a handful of occasions in the last 20 years. We do so carefully and with a heavy heart, but because it is necessary to ensure that this council can reform and change its ways and that we can ensure that people in Liverpool get the good-quality  government that they deserve. This is not a reflection on local government more generally across this country. In fact, we are taking this action to defend the good name of local government across the country, and I pay tribute to officers and councillors the length and breadth of England for the good work they do day in, day out.

Bob Blackman: I thank the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), for the comments that they made in a bipartisan manner. Clearly, one of the issues of concern to Liverpool residents will be what extra costs may be borne as a result of this decision. Clearly, the commissioners may be in place for some considerable period of time, so will my right hon Friend reassure us that Liverpool council tax payers will not be picking up the costs of these commissioners, if they are duly appointed, and that if the commissioners recommend further proposals to him on expenditure, he will consider those appropriately?

Robert Jenrick: The costs of the report that has been undertaken by Max Caller and of the commissioners will be borne by Liverpool City Council. However, I expect that the work to come will save the taxpayers of Liverpool a great deal of money, because underlying the report by Mr Caller is the sense that many millions of pounds have been wasted as a result of mismanagement by the city council, and I very much hope that we can put that right.

Justin Madders: Newspaper headlines in this kind of situation can often make it appear that a whole council or, indeed, a whole city is being traduced, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition that there are a number of good people in the council doing a good job. I also welcome his emphasis on partnership moving forward because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) said, no one likes to feel that things are being done to them, and it will be much better all round if this is done in a collegiate manner.
I want to ask about transport. Many of my constituents use Merseytravel facilities to get to work and visit families. The Secretary of State did not expressly refer to that in his statement. Does he know whether that was looked at as part of this investigation?

Robert Jenrick: I do not believe that was looked at as part of this investigation. The highways function of Liverpool City Council was investigated by Mr Caller. He has made some remarks on some of its processes and contracts that have been entered into with regard to that function, but I do not believe that he has looked at the broader transport network across the Liverpool city region or made any comment one way or another on that.

Nigel Evans: We now go by video link—

Wera Hobhouse: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Nigel Evans: I was not expecting that link. I was expecting Tim Farron, but you are clearly not Tim Farron! It has been switched again. I call Wera Hobhouse.

Wera Hobhouse: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Not so long ago, Liverpool was the European capital of culture, under the Liberal Democrats, and it is a shame to see it in its current position as a result of the failings of Labour government. I know that my council colleagues, who have a lot of experience on Liverpool City Council, will do their utmost and co-operate to turn the city around. Many of the problems in Liverpool have been caused by creating the post of Mayor, concentrating a lot of power in one hand. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the people in cities and city regions have a democratic choice on whether they want to have an elected Mayor or not, and not leave the decisions to councils and politicians?

Robert Jenrick: I hope that, given the remarks the hon. Lady has just made, she is supporting the report that Max Caller has produced and our proposed intervention, and that the Liberal Democrat group on Liverpool City Council will make similar comments to those made on behalf of the Labour group on the council by the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed). The report concludes that the issues faced by the city council are much greater than one individual and much wider than simply the role of elected Mayor, so I do not think it would be correct to say that this issue emanates from the decision to have an elected Mayor. However, the hon. Lady is correct to say that that creates a degree of concentration of power, which means that accountability and scrutiny are all the more important. I very much hope that that will be corrected as a result of the work to come.

Nigel Evans: You are keeping me on my toes, Wera. Well done.

Maria Eagle: I am shocked by the findings that the Secretary of State has outlined to the House today and I assure him that I will read the report extremely carefully once it is published. Does he agree that the priority now must be to protect Liverpool council tax payers’ money and the services the people of Liverpool rely on? Does he also agree that it is in the public interest to put in place effective procedures for obtaining best value in all that the council does going forward? Given that the council is to pay the costs of the interventions, as he has set out, is there an opportunity, if swift improvement is made, for the intervention to be shorter than the three years he has set out today?

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful, once again, for the constructive way in which the hon. Lady has approached this issue, like her fellow Liverpool MPs today. The intervention I am proposing is for a maximum of three years, so she is correct to say that there is no need for the commissioners, if they are put in place, to be there for that full term if progress is made faster than that. They   will report to me on a six-monthly basis. We can review the matter on each of those occasions, and I will keep the hon. Lady and her colleagues fully informed of my decisions on each occasion. She is absolutely right to say that our sole interest here is the people of Liverpool, the taxpayers of Liverpool, and ensuring that their public services are delivered properly, their money is safeguarded and the city is one in which people feel complete confidence to invest, do business and work with the city council. I hope that, together, that is exactly what we can achieve.

Scott Benton: The report concludes that the cycle of elections in Liverpool reduces scrutiny and inhibits long-term focus. Of course this problem is not just unique to Liverpool. For example, Calderdale, where I was formerly a councillor, is one of the handful of local authorities still yet to approve a local development plan, 10 years into the process. The Labour administration there kicks the can down the road from year to year because it elects in thirds. To help avoid the issues in Liverpool being replicated elsewhere, would the Secretary of State support a review of the current electoral cycle in metropolitan borough councils?

Robert Jenrick: I will give further thought to my hon. Friend’s suggestion, but I agree that it would be better for councils to move to all-out elections, and—unless there are exceptional reasons to the contrary—it would be better if councillors were elected in single-member wards. Max Caller’s report clearly makes that recommendation for Liverpool, and he had made that recommendation in the past, having witnessed dysfunctional councils with poor scrutiny and accountability in other parts of the country. It seems to be a thread running through those councils that have got into extreme difficulties. That is something we should reflect on, and I will refer to it in due course.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to 20 questions. We will now suspend the House for three minutes for the sanitisation of the Dispatch Boxes.
Sitting suspended.

Bill presented

Coronavirus (No.2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dawn Butler, Rebecca Long Bailey, Clive Lewis, Caroline Lucas, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Layla Moran, Geraint Davies and Lloyd Russell-Moyle presented a Bill to make provision in connection with coronavirus; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 279).

Point of Order

Justin Madders: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On Monday, I received a written answer from the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), to a question about operation waiting times beyond 52 weeks. The response stated that
“This information is not held in the format requested.”
Yesterday, however, the respected publication the Health Service Journal indicated that it had already received this information from NHS England. I have since received a copy of this from the Health Service Journal, and indeed, it is identical to the information I requested. I believe the hon. Member for Charnwood, who I shadow, is a diligent and courteous Minister, but this situation does require significant explanation. I had given him due notice today, and I had hoped he would be able to give us an explanation.
I should also point out that the Department has responded to me on 31 other occasions during the past year stating that it does not hold the information requested, sometimes in response to questions for which I genuinely struggle to understand why it does not have that information, one example being how many patients have been treated in Nightingale hospitals. Certainly, if I were in the Minister’s shoes, I would want to know the answer to those questions. I am therefore seeking guidance from you today, Mr Deputy Speaker, about what avenues are available when I receive answers of this nature where the Department does have, or should have, the information requested.

Nigel Evans: Thank you, Mr Madders, for having given the Speaker’s Office notice of the point of order you have just made, and you have confirmed that you have told the Minister about it.
It is not for the Chair to comment on the accuracy or completeness of ministerial answers: we all know that that is for Ministers. However, the Government’s own Ministerial Code states that
“Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest”.
Therefore, if the Department does hold the information requested, it should provide it. I am sure that the Minister concerned will review the answer and provide further information if appropriate and available. If the hon. Gentleman remains dissatisfied with the answer, he might wish to raise the issue with the Procedure Committee, but I also ask the Whip on duty to ensure that the Minister is well informed of the response that I have just made to this point of order.

Gaming Hardware (Automated Purchase and Resale)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Douglas Chapman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the automated purchase and resale of games consoles and computer components; and for connected purposes.
I am sure that in the history of this Parliament, the pressing need to address the issue of scalping through legislative proposals has not been of regular concern to this House. However, I am here today to discuss this very phenomenon in its most 21st-century of interpretations, and to highlight the pressing issue of unfairness to consumers at the hands of unscrupulous scalpers and automated bot attacks.
The secondary resale market—or scalping, as it is commonly known—is worth billions in revenue to those in the automated bot industry. Scalpers manipulate and skew the supply and demand chain to create an unfair advantage in the marketplace, using bot attacks to use up basic supplies of coveted goods, such as the next generation of games consoles and computer components, then selling them on at hugely inflated prices. Experts in the field of bot mitigation and cyber-threats estimate that these kinds of organised bot groups can double their money in a matter of weeks through this practice, leaving the consumer in the position of either paying well over the manufacturer’s recommended price, or simply having to go without their desired purchase, as the bot resale site has made the games console unaffordable.
In this sense, the issue of scalping is at the heart of unfairness for the consumer. It creates frustration and disappointment, delay and disempowerment, and as things stand, there is no recourse to the law or to consumer protection. Scalping may be bad cyber-practice, and it may leave consumers short-changed, but no legislation exists at this time to curb bot enthusiasm or to protect the consumer, so the problem simply grows. The covid pandemic has provided the perfect storm for scalpers: an increase in online shopping, combined with the disruption to supply chains, has allowed increasingly well-organised and highly trained bot communities to make vast profits at the expense of the consumer. However, this issue existed long before the world was turned on its head by the global virus. Bot groups were mobilising and professionalising at an accelerated rate. They are well funded, they are technically proficient, and they are emboldened by the fact that the practice of scalping is not yet illegal.
The issue first came to my attention when constituents got in touch to complain that they were having problems accessing the Sony PlayStation 5, the Xbox Series X and associated computer components in the run-up to Christmas last year. Having waited eagerly for the latest next-generation consoles to be released, they discovered that they had been scalped, with automatic bots buying up those goods in large quantities. That caused a lot of disappointment in the wider gaming community, with customers unable to purchase goods at the end of what has been a particularly hard year for everyone.
Those consoles and computer components then reappeared on other websites and shopping portals, some with eye-watering mark-ups of as much as 170% on the original price. This is not a new phenomenon. One look at the gamers websites and magazines reveals that scalping has been a problem for quite some time. It creates a vicious cycle where gamers, desperate for their consul or game card, are willing to pay over the odds to combat the pre-arranged shortage in the market, which has been unfairly skewed. That serves only to disadvantage the consumer further and bolster the unscrupulous activities of scalpers—and so it continues.
Experts on bot mitigation, such as Netacea, predict that the situation will only worsen in 2021, not just for the games industry but widening out across goods as diverse as gym equipment, hot tubs and important services such as supermarket delivery slots even. Experts envisage both a major consumer backlash and a surge in brands stepping in to tackle the problem head on, but surely it would be better just to legislate to mitigate the worst impact of bot buying.
The issue is especially concerning given the nature of the economy at the time—depressed due to the pandemic, with job losses and precarious financial situations for both consumers and retailers. For smaller retailers, it is a double whammy, as they do not have the same means as larger companies to protect themselves against this terrible bot behaviour, but have to deal with the loss of revenue from games that are available, at a price, on the bots’ websites. This is turning into an online wild west, where bots and skilled cyber-villains have the upper hand. What hope is there for the consumer, the retailer and the games industry? It is here that we must look to the law to redress the imbalance in power and injustice.
Interestingly, there are parallels to be drawn between scalping and ticket touting. Legislation on the secondary selling of tickets, which came into law in 2018, can be used as a guide to tackle scalping. That legislation was brought in to prohibit the resale of tickets for amounts far in excess of the original price. It helped to crack down on the enormous profits being made at the expense of people looking to attend their favourite sporting, theatre or music event, and gained huge support from across the music industry, from such artists as Ed Sheeran and the Arctic Monkeys. Today, I am proposing that similar legislation be brought in to ensure that consumers can purchase gaming consoles, games and related goods at no more than the manufacturer’s recommended price, and that the resale of goods purchased by automated bots be made illegal.
I have already written to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to highlight the issue and examine the legislative options to ban the bot, or at least make some significant progress on consumer  protection. This is not a scenario that can be left to the market to regulate. Nor can it be left as the sole responsibility of individual companies to monitor and take action to mitigate the power of the bots. The consumer must be at the heart of our actions to improve the experience, cost and availability for customers. Just as scalping creates an unlevel playing field in terms of purchase power for the consumer, so it also creates issues for retailers and companies that sell and make these consoles and computer parts. Even the large corporations are beginning to take notice that a knock-on effect is that fewer next-generation consoles are now being sold and that affects the new games coming on to the market, especially games that are specifically launched to coincide with these next-generation machines.
For consumers, there are additional issues around guarantees and return of faulty goods. Then there is the question of possible criminality. This is an international issue; scalpers work across borders. Questions must be asked about how they generate funds to make these large-scale purchases online. What are the profits that are generated from this? What are they used for? It could be that we are moving into the area of potential money laundering, organised crime, tax evasion and fraud.
As the House can see, this is a situation that has grown arms and legs. It is out of control and it is only going to get worse. This is not some niche issue, or even a mere annoying inconvenience. My office has been fielding inquiries and this Bill has had wide media coverage in the specialist gaming and tech publications, but also mainstream media coverage in France, Spain, the USA, Japan and, yesterday, Bangkok.
This is an opportunity for this Parliament to lead the way globally and introduce legislation that is about consumer rights, consumer protection and fairness in the marketplace. Scalpers have all the advantages. They hold all the cards and they can currently act with impunity, making huge profits in the process. Now is the time for the UK Government to take a firm stance on this cyber malpractice, to step up and act on behalf of the consumer, to draw a clear line and put in place the necessary legislation. Let us put a stop to these automated bots bulk-buying these consoles for resale. Let us act to stop the wilful scalping of virtual shoppers and end the bot monopoly. In conclusion, I say to the Government: let us put the consumer back in control.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Douglas Chapman, Ronnie Cowan, Carol Monaghan, Margaret Ferrier, Martyn Day, Drew Hendry, John Mc Nally, Steven Bonnar, Alison Thewliss and Joanna Cherry present the Bill.
Douglas Chapman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 280).

Backbench Business

Online Anonymity and Anonymous Abuse

[Relevant Documents: e-petition 575833, Make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account, and e-petition 332315, Ban anonymous accounts on social media; oral evidence taken before the Petitions Committee on 21 May and 2 July 2020, on Tackling Online Abuse, HC 364.]

Nigel Evans: Before I call Siobhan Baillie to speak for about 10 minutes, may I inform everybody that, from then on in, we are on a three-minute limit? For those who can participate for less than three minutes, you will be doing a favour to colleagues who are lower down on the call list.

Siobhan Baillie: I beg to move,
That this House has considered online anonymity and anonymous abuse.
In recent weeks, we have been rightly concerned about safety in our towns and cities, yet people face danger and harassment not just in the physical world, but on the dark cyber streets and alleyways of the internet. Cowardly keyboard warriors stalk these streets and lurk in our phones. They bully with abandon, they spread racist and misogynistic abuse, they attack looks, weight, age, race, gender, disability, success as well as failure and the young and old alike. No one is safe from their violent hate. Anonymity provides the shadows where these people can hide. It facilitates and encourages online abuse.
My own experience of hate came after the birth of my daughter last year. The outpouring of venom because I took four weeks’ maternity leave was a shock. Attacking somebody for being a mum or suggesting that a mum cannot do the job of an MP is misogynistic and, quite frankly, ridiculous. But I would be lying if I said that I did not find it very upsetting, especially at a time when I could barely move and needed to work out how to feed my new baby. Other people have suffered more—from death and rape threats to all forms of intimidation and harassment in between. Nobody should have to put up with that. Seeing the bravery with which others have confronted this menace has prompted me to campaign for change, and I am not alone.
The racism and abuse levelled at footballers is no longer from the terraces. Many England players who will run out for us tomorrow night have suffered unspeakable racist abuse. I fully support Harry Maguire’s calls for verified identification. I have spoken to the FA’s excellent Kick It Out, which has superb goals for social media companies to create robust and swift measures to take down abusive material, and for investigating authorities swiftly to identify the originators.
Katie Price launched a petition only a few weeks ago that already has over 160,000 signatures.

Andrew Griffith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on this incredibly important issue. Will she join me in paying tribute to Katie, who is my constituent? She is a mum battling for her disabled son who is often abused online. Her petition makes the very sensible proposal to  end online anonymity. No one has a right to a cloak to conceal their actions of harm. Both Katie’s petition and my hon. Friend’s own great work in this area deserve the support of the whole House.

Siobhan Baillie: I thank my hon. Friend; it was very kind of him to set up a meeting between me, Katie and her mum Amy. We talked about her experiences of the trolls. What they have been through is absolutely heartbreaking. Harvey has been subject to the most vile abuse, which I actually cannot bring myself to say. This has gone on his whole life. The strength with which he and his family have endured these issues is remarkable. Any mother would want to protect her children and we must arm parents with the tools to do just that.
In Stroud, a robust military veteran has had years of deliberate online attempts to ruin his business and reputation. It has nearly broken him mentally at times. The Facebook page that attacks him has a spare one in case the first gets taken down. Another constituent has endured years of stalking and harassment. She is a retired social worker. She has found the police ill equipped to deal with such fast-moving tech, and even when the perpetrators put a picture of her garage door up online—indicating they knew where she lived—she still felt unprotected. A Gloucestershire journalist was recently told by an anonymous loon that she is single because she
“is self absorbed and looks like a slut”.
I have done enough domestic violence work as a lawyer to know that such attitudes and language are a short hop, skip and jump to violence.
Of course, not all online nastiness is anonymous. One named man said of me on Facebook last week:
“She should be banished from our lovely Stroud…years ago she’d have been shot on the spot for her arrogance and hypocrisy…yet people voted for the ass licking vile piece of slime.”
Lovely—and I could go on and on. I do not have enough time to properly address other reports of dangerous antisemitism, fake news, vaccine misinformation, deliberate reputation ruining and online fraud. That is on top of the daily legal but harmful harassing-type behaviour, plus posts that have the veneer of a justified challenge but are really just deliberately spiking pile-ons and hate.
Constituents I have spoken to are clear that the reporting does not work, the cost of legal remedies are out of the reach of normal people and the law needs updating. We need to make social media known more for the good in our society, rather than as a toxic, unsafe hellhole. The Government’s online harms work, though overdue, is to be commended as a huge step in the right direction. That legislation will require media platforms to take more effective actions against abuse, whether it is anonymous or not. Its aims of protecting children and empowering adults to stay safe online are noble, yet the White Paper barely addresses the issue of anonymity. There were no specific consultation questions about the issue. That should be rectified without delay.
As it stands, tech companies do not know who millions of their users are. No matter how good their intentions, the lack of basic information means that any attempt to police platforms and bring offenders to justice is a painful process, if it happens at all. Ofcom’s hands will be tied behind its back before it even starts.
I do not propose the banning of anonymous accounts. There are great benefits in anonymity that I know other Members will speak passionately about today. I would  like to see tech companies move on this issue, as we should not always need the Government to intervene, although sadly it currently looks like they will have to.
Three simple steps would go a long way to prevent, deter and reduce online abuse. First, we should give social media users the option to verify their identity. Secondly, we should make it easy for everybody to see whether or not a user has chosen to verify their identity. Members of this House already use that function—my Twitter account has a prominent blue tick next to it, thereby providing confidence that the account is genuine and my details have been checked. Verification works: we should make it available to all. Finally, we should give users the option to block communication, comments and other interaction from unverified users as a category, if they wish.
Some people argue that such moves would undermine freedom of speech, but I disagree. No one would be prevented from using another name or being “Princess What’s-her-chops”, but it would make it harder for online abusers to hide in the shadows if they cause mayhem. Importantly, it would make abusers easier to catch and give social media users the power of choice. Some will be happy to interact with unverified users; others will not. But there must be a choice.
In any event, what greater impediment to freedom of speech is there than people worrying that what they say online will end up in a death threat or a rape threat? What personal freedoms have been lost through the damage done to mental health by online bullying? How many people have already looked at online abuse and hesitated before applying for public-facing jobs, or not applied at all? My proposals would protect freedom of expression and respect the choice of anonymity, but make it harder for abusers to hide in darkness and give individuals new powers to control how they interact with others. I urge everybody to look up the organisation Clean up the Internet, which was co-founded by one of my constituents, to see the proposals in more detail.
Mr Deputy Speaker, no one should face the abuse and horror that you will hear about today. For the victims of online harm, the abuse is not virtual. It does not stay in cyber-space. It impacts the real lives of real people in the real world. If we fail properly to investigate the impact and options surrounding anonymity, I fear we will render any forthcoming legislation and change—no matter how good it is—out of touch and out of date before the ink is dry. We have the expertise, support and drive to tackle online harms; let us be a beacon of light and illuminate the dark streets of social media. Let us really lead the world on tackling anonymous abuse.

Nigel Evans: It may be of use if I go through some of the timings for the rest of the debate and the afternoon. The wind-ups will start at 4.21, with six minutes for John Nicolson. We will then have Jo Stevens at 4.27 and the Minister, Matt Warman, at 4.35. At 4.43, Siobhan Baillie will have a couple of minutes to wind up the debate.
The time limit is three minutes and I must ask hon. Members to observe it very strictly, because otherwise colleagues will simply not be able to get into the debate. They will be doing colleagues a favour if they can even manage to deliver their speeches in less than three minutes.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate.
Legislating on online harms gives us a vital opportunity to call a halt to the extremism, misinformation and avalanche of harmful abuse that has become commonplace on social media. Whether on big platforms such as Twitter or fringe platforms such as Telegram, harmful content is now all-pervasive. Recently, another tsunami of racist abuse was directed at the footballers Marcus Rashford, Lauren James and Anthony Martial. Sometimes, the perpetrators can be identified, but too often those responsible do not reveal who they are. In the past, we argued that online anonymity supported open democratic debate; I am now convinced that anonymity encourages online harm that is not just hateful in itself but is used to spread lies about individuals and aims to undermine their credibility and so shut down their voices. Far from nurturing democratic debate, anonymity undermines democracy.
My work challenging Jew-hate reached a climax last autumn, with the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission report into antisemitism in the Labour party. Community Security Trust found that my public comments at that time led to 90,000 mentions on social media. The vast majority were abusive, racist and misogynistic.
Let me share just a few; some are very offensive.
“I hope she dies soon. Dumb bitch”;
“nothing but a couple of shit-stirring…cum buckets, bought and paid for by Israel.”
I was told I was a “Mossad agent”, a “Zionist stooge”, a wrinkly “pedo-lover”. “Traitor.” “Snake.” “Rat.” “Shill.” “Nazi”. This abuse is aggressive, harmful, yet sometimes I have no idea who said it.
Ending anonymity for those who promulgate hate or harm is key to effectively combating it. We must compel social media companies to be able to identify all users. We know that is easily done. Take the online payment company PayPal. Everyone using PayPal must provide their identity when setting up an account. Users’ identity is not public, but it can be traced if required. If social media companies acted similarly, those who use online anonymity for good, such as whistleblowers, or victims of child abuse or domestic abuse, could continue to do so, but those who use anonymity to spread harmful content would be identifiable, and could be dealt with by the appropriate authorities. Knowing that would, at a stroke—

Nigel Evans: I am sorry; we will have to leave it there. Time is up.

Damian Hinds: How deeply upsetting for everybody to hear that very powerful speech by the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge). It is humbling to follow it. I congratulate her on what she said and the bravery she has shown. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate and thank the Committee for granting it.
Of course plenty of people are anonymous without ever being abusive and, God knows, plenty of abuse comes from people who are perfectly open about who  they are, but there is something of a media hierarchy in human nature. I think we all recognise that there are many people who would say things to someone on the phone that they would not say in person, who would put things in email that they would not say on the phone, would put things on Twitter that they would not write in an email, and yes, will post anonymously something they would never want to see their name written next to.
I do not want to ban anonymity, any more than my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud would. People have long sought its sense of freedom, its disinhibiting effect, its privacy and occasionally its hilarity and enjoyment, and there is nothing wrong with any of that. As long as there is no harm to anybody else, it is no business of the state. It is also important, of course, for activists in oppressive regimes, or for people seeking advice on sensitive issues, to discover a community out there, to know that they are not alone. But while in one context anonymity can give voice to the voiceless and empower the oppressed, in another it can coarsen public discourse and facilitate abuse. Surely it is possible for us to have the one without having to have the other. In this debate we will hear, indeed have already heard, about some really nasty abuses—in many cases, criminal abuses, where the issue with anonymity is really one about registration; it is about the impediments to enforcement action. Many of those cases will be about people in the public eye.
I am also concerned about lower-level effects—the impact on the general tone of public discourse, and the consequences for our social cohesion and mutual understanding. I am concerned not only, or even mainly, about public figures, but also about everybody else—about moderate, normal people of all views who fear to put their head above the parapet, and those deterred from entering public life in future for fear of what their children might see written about them on Twitter.
Free speech is at the heart of our traditions, but we have another long tradition that pamphlets declare who they are from—the imprint. Writers might write under pseudonyms, but someone—the publisher—is ultimately accountable. Social media platforms deny that responsibility, so anonymity could also make it easier for those foreign powers and others who want deliberately to confuse and divide us. It can be hard to know whether you are interacting with a person, a machine or something in between.
There are many possible permutations; there are also many pitfalls, and this warrants proper debate and deliberation. My proposal, like that of my hon. Friend, is a pretty mild one, and a safe one—that if you are on general-usage, mass-market social media using your real identity, you should have the right, if you choose, to hear only from other people using their real identity.

Lisa Cameron: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing today’s debate. There are two issues that I want to touch on briefly in relation to anonymity regarding online accounts.
The first issue is impersonation online, which I experienced in 2019 just prior to the general election as I gave up my Twitter MP handle. Within an hour, someone had stolen it and followed a number of my colleagues, and began to tweet out as though they were  me with my Twitter name DrLisaCameronMP. It was not a parody account, which we can all relate to, but one which I believe to have been made in malice to impersonate an MP. We all know how many constituents contact us initially through social media with crucial private issues who would have been affected by this individual acting with impunity.
When we reported it, we were originally told that there was nothing that breached standards. However, this is a serious matter not just for public figures but for those who come in confidence to seek our help. My situation could not be rectified until I contacted the CEO of Twitter. Following the election, I even had difficulty getting my own handle back, as I was initially advised that it belonged to someone else. No one was held responsible and it would have taken a police investigation to find out. It should simply never be allowed to happen. Where it does, there should be some means of recourse due to the adverse impact on our most vulnerable constituents.
The second issue relates to my role as vice-chair of the all-party group against antisemitism. Sadly, and as we might expect, antisemitism and extremism are a key concern in relation to online anonymity. Disguising one’s identity is not new for extremists, as the Antisemitism Policy Trust pointed out in its briefing on online anonymity. The Ku Klux Klan and others have long sought to cover their faces in order to carry out extreme acts. The internet now offers anonymous abusers and spreaders of radical and violent ideologies a degree of protection by allowing them to hide their identities. Looking at the Community Security Trust’s incident statistics for October 2020, nearly 40% of reported antisemitic abuse online during that month came from fully anonymous and partially anonymous users. That is an extremely worrying trend.
Placing sensible checks on anonymity and incentivising against harm from anonymous accounts can help victims regain a sense of control and confidence, and would surely disrupt what are presently significant levels of abuse. I urge that restrictions be applied to online abusive actions, much more so than they currently are. Existing legislation urgently needs to be updated through the proposed online safety Bill.

Damian Collins: We should not have to tolerate online abuse targeting individuals with dehumanising language and threats of injury. Anonymity on social media has provided some people with a platform to abuse others in this way. There are clearly two parties at fault: the person who creates the hateful content, and the platform that both lets them do it and allows what they have posted to remain visible. Making people reveal their true identity to a tech company when creating a social media account would, I believe, make it more likely that they will treat other users with respect. These tech platforms also need to co-operate more effectively and transparently with investigations into the behaviour of their users.
Social media companies too often mistake harmful hate speech for legitimate freedom of expression. A recent report by The Guardian revealed internal moderator guidelines at Facebook, reportedly leaked to the newspaper, that say that public figures are considered to be permissible targets for certain types of abuse, including calls for  their death. More needs to be done not just to take down harmful content, but to ensure that social media companies do not amplify it in their systems. No one has a freedom of expression right to be promoted on TikTok’s “For You” page or the Facebook news feed. An internal company report in 2016 told Facebook that 64% of people who joined groups sharing extremist content did so at the prompting of Facebook’s recommendation tools. Another report from August last year noted that 70% of the top 100 most active civic groups in the USA are considered non-recommendable for issues such as hate, misinformation, bullying and harassment.
The business model of social media companies is based around engagement, meaning that people who engage in and with abusive behaviour will see more of it, because that is what the platform thinks they are interested in. When we talk about regulating harmful content online, we are mainly talking about that model and the money these companies make from all user-generated content as long as it keeps people on their site. Content that uses dehumanising language to attack others is not only hurtful to the victim but more likely to encourage others to do the same.
When Parliament debates the online harms Bill later this year, we will have to remind ourselves what the real-world consequences are of abuse on social media. In Washington DC on 6 January, we saw an attempted insurrection in the US Capitol, fuelled by postings on Facebook, that caused the deaths of five people. In the UK, we have seen significant increases in recorded hate crimes over the past 10 years, suicide rates are at a 20-year high, and over the past six years the number of hospital admissions because of self-injury in pre-teens has doubled. Arrests for racist and indecent chanting at football grounds more than doubled between 2019 and 2020, even though hundreds of matches were cancelled or played behind closed doors. These issues are too serious to be left to the chief execs of the big tech companies alone. Those people need to recognise the harm that their systems can create in the hands of people and organisations intent on spreading hate and abuse. We need to establish the standards that we expect them to meet, and empower the regulatory institutions we will need to ensure that they are doing so.

Stella Creasy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this important debate. Like the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), I had one of those difficult conversations this week, which I am sure many Members across the House have had, when I saw reports that the Facebook moderators had said that death threats towards members of the public who are in the public realm were acceptable. It is never easy, getting a death threat or a rape threat. I first started getting them in 2013, when I helped the campaigner, Caroline Criado Perez, to campaign to put Jane Austen on banknotes, and in the past eight years the situation has gone from bad to worse. Back then, it felt shocking. It was unusual. It was definitely a matter for the police. Now it is all too commonplace.
One of the things we have to recognise is that this it is not an equal experience. Women, particularly women of colour, and people from non-binary backgrounds are  especially at risk of being abused online. Some 82% of women politicians from around the world report experiencing psychological violence, and half of them have had rape or death threats. In the 2017 election, MPs who were women of colour were particularly targeted, receiving 35% more abuse than their white colleagues, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) receiving half of all the abuse online during that election. It is little wonder that by 2019, many colleagues from across the House cited the abuse that they had faced as the reason they were standing down.
This is not just about people in the public domain. It is also about the experience of women and people of colour across our country, and we know that that has got worse during the pandemic, with a 50% increase in the abuse, according to Glitch!, which has been monitoring this. It is not just the words; it is the sheer volume of abuse we get. And it is not just online any more; it is leaching into our offline world, and it is increasingly not anonymous, with people feeling emboldened to use abuse as it becomes commonplace. Every year that we delay enacting this legislation is another year when we see voices being removed from our public domain, so let us kill the idea that this is about free speech. It is not free speech when 50% of the conversation is living in fear of what someone might do, or of being found or being terrorised, and it is not free speech when we are not hearing those voices—that diversity of voices that improves our debates and discussions.
I started off using kittens to try to take the heat out of conversations; now I have moved on to capybaras, but the problem in the last eight years has got worse. It has been state-sponsored, it is organised and it requires us to come together and hold the media companies accountable, just as we would hold a pub landlord accountable if we were being abused in a pub while just going about our business. The online harms Bill must recognise the intersectional nature of the issues we face. It must listen to organisations such as Glitch!, Hope not Hate and the Jo Cox Foundation—for goodness’ sake, it must listen to that—when they argue that we must recognise who is being targeted. In a free and fair democracy, we must fight to reclaim not just our streets but our social media too.

Jeremy Wright: I want to begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), not just on securing this debate but on what she said. In this debate there is one central question, which is how we are to keep online anonymity available for those who need and deserve it and yet ensure that it cannot be used as a shield by those who do not. Of course, some will argue that anonymity online is part of freedom of speech, and that the freedom to hold opinions without interference, which is included in article 19 of the universal declaration on human rights, implies a right to anonymity, but I do not think it is that simple.
Human rights are often about a balance of rights. The right to anonymity in what someone says has to be balanced against the right of the people they abuse to speak freely themselves and the need to hold them to account for making their speech less free. These are of course difficult balances to strike, but if we care about everyone’s freedom of speech, we cannot avoid them.
Freedom of speech is not unrestricted in other arenas, and it should not be unrestricted on social media either. That restriction often comes via the criminal law, including online, but there is much we should not tolerate that falls short of criminal behaviour, damaging individuals and damaging us all. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that in addressing anonymous abuse of an individual, we perhaps should start, counter-intuitively, by looking not at the merits of anonymity, but at the merits of verifiable identity. Whether it is in online banking, shopping or combating deep fakes, it will increasingly help to be able to demonstrate who we are, and if we can establish reliable ways of proving identity, we should be able to choose to interact online only with others whose identity can be verified or who are willing to reveal it. However, anonymous content that damages us all, from disinformation to extremism, is a different problem. Here I think we should consider the disclosure of identity only with judicial sanction, in the same way as other intrusions into privacy such as search warrants or phone tapping, which require the authority of a judge.
Of course, all of this needs much more thought and debate, and the forthcoming online safety Bill should be an opportunity for both. Determining what the duty of care at the heart of the Bill requires online platforms to do, both for those who need the protection of anonymity and for those who need protection from anonymity, is a real challenge, but I think it is now one that we must grasp and do so in the course of this Bill, not put off again.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this debate. The word “pandemic” is now very much part of our lexicon, and forever will be because of covid-19, yet there is another pandemic infecting this world and that is online abuse.
Since I entered politics, I myself have been the victim of a consistent and vicious campaign of abuse. It is largely based on my appearance. When I post the video of this speech online, invariably someone will post a gif or a comment designed to hurt me. Sometimes this is done through anonymous accounts and sometimes through real profiles. We live in a world where online platforms embolden people to be nasty, vindictive, spiteful and cruel, and very few public figures escape it.
Only last week, following a match with Slavia Prague, the Glasgow Rangers footballers, Glen Kamara and Kemar Roofe, were subjected to a torrent of some of the vilest racist abuse I have ever witnessed on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. While this was on an unprecedented scale, the club tells me that every single black player at Rangers football club has been racially abused online at some point this season, yet when confronted, the social media companies wash their hands of responsibility and continue to facilitate this hate on their platforms. Rather than joining the rest of society in tackling racial inequality and prejudice, they are actually enabling it. It is time they were called out and held accountable.
I also want to raise a very sinister and very concerning trend seen in Northern Ireland. It involves threats of social media campaigns being waged against politicians and against journalists in a bid to destroy them personally and silence them publicly. What is most concerning is  that the links to a political party that enjoys significant electoral support being behind this campaign of intimidation are strong. We need the social media companies to recognise this bot intimidation, and we need the police to be empowered to stop it.
In conclusion, we can continue to talk about these issues, but what we want to see is a legislative basis for enforcing measures for social media firms to require ID to verify accounts and for a swifter response and better co-operation with the police in tackling this online pandemic of hate. If that does not happen, we will have failed every victim, whether a teenager, TV presenter or international footballer, and allowed the continuation of hurt and harm against them. It is time for this Government to act.

Simon Fell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this important debate. Over the past year, we have all spent more time online, for good and for ill. The pressure of the pandemic has shown us some of the very best parts of our society and some of the very worst. Online abuse, made much easier through anonymity, has consistently been one of the very worst elements. Let me be clear: I am not attacking anonymity online itself. It is not always harmful; in fact, it can often be a force for good. However, it is currently being abused by trolls and bullies and used to spread misinformation. That harms other users and undermines democratic debate. From the stories we have heard today to the ones I hear in the Tea Room on a daily basis and tragic cases such as that of Caroline Flack, this abuse is real. It has a real impact and lasting, sometimes lethal, consequences.
When social media users are anonymous, they feel much more able to behave poorly and bully and abuse other users. It is not just me saying that; repeated studies show that anonymity makes user behaviour increasingly aggressive and violent. Anonymity also makes it much harder to enforce rules against such behaviour. If a troll is eventually banned, they simply create a new anonymous account under a new name and their behaviour continues unabated. Online anonymity is a key factor in the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories and extremism. Organised disinformation networks exploit the ability to create fake accounts and false identities at scale, using these networks to create false and misleading content and to spread and amplify it.
Tackling this effectively will take a really fine balance. I have absolutely no appetite to see free speech curtailed, but if we hope to challenge disinformation and extreme content, we need to address this issue head-on. If we look at platforms such as BitChute and some of the people who use them, they have weaponised free speech and are acting as if there are no boundaries at all. People use these platforms to propagate images and text that directly undermine the rights of other people and minority communities with hateful content. We need to have a proper discussion and understanding of this. Anonymity wrapped in the flag of free speech is being used right now to justify the sharing of extremely hateful content and to directly assault our democratic values.
How do we tackle this? I do not believe that we should just ban anonymity, but my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud makes exactly the right points on  this issue. We should mandate that social media platforms give people the option to verify their identity. Users should have the option to block interaction with others who choose not to verify themselves, and it should be clear to everyone who is verified. Doing that would put the power back into the hands of users who want to enjoy the amazing benefits of social media but not see hate speech or fake news. Frankly, if someone is not prepared to stand up and put their name to their words, why should anyone listen to them?

Debbie Abrahams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) not only on securing the debate but on the dignity and determination she has brought to this issue. I am speaking primarily in my capacity as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for compassionate politics.
The last year has shown the capacity of social media and digital platforms to benefit society. We have all seen how they can be misused. Online abuse and even online hate, including racism, antisemitism and misogyny, is prolific, with horrific impacts on individuals’ mental health. We have even seen cases that have been associated with suicide. In addition to harming individuals, propaganda, misinformation and fake news are threatening the health of populations and the security of democracies across the world.
Anonymous social media accounts are used by many abusers to hide and get away with their abuse. Research by Clean up the Internet has shown that the majority of abuse and misinformation spread online comes from these anonymous accounts. We should be in no doubt: anonymous accounts embolden bullies and facilitate abusers. This is ruining lives.
It is not only the personal damage caused by anonymous accounts: they are polluting public space, entrenching divisions and trashing our democracy. Research by the thinktank Compassion in Politics found that nearly one in three people are put off posting on social media sites for fear of abuse. Voices are being shut out from online debates because, for many, the space in which those debates are taking place is becoming increasingly toxic. Damaging lies are spun without any recourse.
The Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats has concluded that the use of fake social media accounts to influence the outcome of UK elections is “systemic” and that the level of influence of those accounts is “considerably more extensive” than is widely understood. Of course, this follows on from the work by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee and the US Senate committees.
We have arrived at this critical juncture largely because of the legal framework in which social media companies have been allowed to grow and prosper. A hands-off approach gave fledgling social media companies the room they needed to experiment with algorithms, turn profits from advertising revenue, and engage a larger user base with little social responsibility. The experience over the last decade or so shows that things cannot continue as they are. We need a new legal framework. I hope the online safety Bill will take the bold step of making sure that anonymity is sorted.

Lee Anderson: Imagine that we lived in a society where people walked around wearing a face mask to hide their identity with the sole intention of bullying people and causing upset without any consequences. That would be unacceptable—in fact, nearly impossible, as the police could be called and the culprits dealt with. Yet we have an online society that allows that to happen.
I only ever use Facebook, which is a great way to communicate with people, and most people on there use it sensibly and safely, but we all know that hiding behind a keyboard can bring out the worst in people. Lots of us have been guilty of reacting too quickly to a comment, saying the wrong thing or reading it in the wrong way, but that happens in real life anyway. Maybe some of us should actually be breathalysed before logging on to Facebook, as I am sure alcohol can sometimes play a part. Hiding behind a screen sometimes means that people act differently from the way they act in person. It can bring out a nasty side. If people want to be nasty, it is their right to be nasty, but they should stand up and be counted and identified in doing so.
As MPs we get our fair share of abuse online. The sad thing is that I have sort of accepted that, as I am an MP, it is an occupational hazard. When I say abuse, I mean personal threats—threatening messages about me, my wife, my family, my children and my friends. Sadly, it is even worse for female MPs and MPs of colour. It is unacceptable. I know that MPs are not the nation’s favourite people, but does that justify the level of abuse that they get? I do not think it does.
Some people wish to remain anonymous when reaching out for support or whistleblowing, and that is acceptable. This could be a person wishing to reach out to warn somebody about a new partner in their life who has been abusive or a criminal in the past. We need to find a place online for these people to go to make sure that they are listened to without being ridiculed or laughed at, and feel safe. Maybe we could look at creating an online safe place.
Lockdown has meant that many of us have spent more and more time online, and sadly, for many of us, that has meant more abuse, more threats and the like. In my constituency, I have a little girl called Jossie who has Down’s syndrome. Jossie is a beautiful, bright and loving little five-year-old girl. Her mother campaigns online to raise awareness of Down’s syndrome, and proudly displays Jossie’s pictures online. Trolls in my area thought it was a good idea to lift Jossie’s picture off the internet and put a noose over her head, and make fun about it to Jossie’s sister. This would not happen in the outside world without immediate, swift consequences, and the online world should be no different. I stand with Jossie.

Rosie Duffield: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate and on all the work that she is doing to raise this issue. Yet again, it is a pleasure to take part in a debate where Members across the House are working together to find solutions.
There may be genuine and valid reasons why some people need to protect their identity online—those at risk of being traced by former partners in an abusive situation, professionals such as teachers, or those whose  views may put them in serious danger of harm or torture from their own Government regime. Those who do not need protection, however, are the individuals who choose to use online platforms to bully, intimidate, troll and abuse others. Of course, many people online behave like that without feeling the need to hide behind fake profiles.
Social media gives a great platform to public figures such as MPs, but the downside to having a blue tick on Twitter, especially for women, is that we experience a disproportionate amount of online abuse almost daily. My right hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) spring to mind when I think of online abuse—and indeed, as the hon. Member for Stroud mentioned, she herself was trolled for daring to be pregnant.
I cannot speak in a debate such as this without raising the huge problem of racism on online platforms. We have all seen it in all its disgusting forms all over social media, from trolling, vile language to the use of insulting stereotypes and images. Sadly, though, some forms of racism have been overlooked and even deemed acceptable by many. Racism is not only about the colour of our skin; Islamophobia and antisemitism have shamed political parties in recent years, and the Labour party has been in the spotlight over the recent findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. That is, of course, deeply shameful, as is the treatment of the former MPs who felt that they had no choice but to leave this party.
While I welcome the measures put in place by the leader of my party and the general secretary and his team, many of us have been reporting online abuse by members of our party for several years—personal abuse, sometimes by those with blue ticks themselves, and abuse by party members using anonymous, fake accounts. I know who they are, and it takes only a few seconds to find the posts that they write and share which blatantly clash with the values of this political party.
One of the worst examples for me was the member who mocked up photos and memes of me dressed in the striped clothes worn by Jews in concentration camps. Other members reported his behaviour, yet nothing at all was done until he posted support for a different political party, when he was swiftly expelled. I look forward to the changes that my party and social media platforms will bring in on online abuse, and to the end of these anonymous accounts that are not verified.

Claire Coutinho: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate. It is always a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield).
My constituent Frankie was subject to online stalking, which started on social media but escalated to severe harassment in the workplace, including incredibly offensive emails sent to both her and her colleagues. That caused serious distress for Frankie. While the police were able to track down her online stalker, because the stalker was based in a different jurisdiction—they were based in Scotland, a very long way from East Surrey, and had happened upon her almost by accident—nothing could be done, leaving that person free to go on and abuse again.
Although I welcome the online harms work that we are doing and the work of the Law Commission to improve the duty of care and to look at how we can boost our offences regime for online communications, I refer Members to the Law Commission’s language about the practical barriers to enforcement. It talks about the sheer scale of abusive and offensive online communications. That means that we must seek to prevent some of these communications; we cannot just use an offence regime to police them.
I want to touch briefly on free speech. We know that women are more abused online, we know that that inhibits them from expressing their views, and we know that that puts them off standing for office. I just wonder whether we are ensuring that we look at whose free speech we are protecting.
We also know that online anonymity can be very beneficial to people, whether they are whistleblowers, domestic abuse victims or people who just enjoy the uninhibited conversations that they can find online, but we know that, as more and more people go online, we will have more and more of these cross-jurisdiction problems. From 2 billion in 2015, we expect 7 billion people to be online in 2030. We cannot just act unilaterally on this issue; we need to look at what we can do to work with our partners across the world, because more and more of these trolls may not be based in the UK.
From stalking to harassment, grooming, scamming, extremism, fake news and political interference, we know that the anonymity of online interaction is doing harm, and there is therefore much merit in the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. We should be considering those and all other policies that we can to try to inhibit some of the anonymous abuse that we have seen.

Jamie Stone: Well done the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this debate. I stand here today as a Liberal and I am a great supporter of free speech, but I have no difficulty in drawing a line between free speech and online abuse. I thank the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) for lightening up this rather dark debate with his joke about breathalysing people before they go on Facebook, but what we have heard from all around the Chamber is a horrific litany of disgusting abuse online.
Online abuses have a real-world impact. We cannot just take refuge in dualism. We cannot say that the online world is different from the real world, because it is not. As we know, we have seen the final, awful result of some of this, which is that young people and other people have taken their own lives.
On anonymity, the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) made the very sensible point that, of course, anonymity has its place in all this. It can provide much needed support for whistleblowers, for minorities finding a safe online space for self-expression, and for victims of physical abuse connecting with a support network. The conversation about anonymity is difficult and we may have to make trade-offs in what the Bill contains. We may not like some of the trade-offs, but at the end of the day, it would be much more worrying if the online safety Bill did not get to the heart of the issue. I sincerely hope that it will.
Let us face it: we already take a variable approach. If somebody wants to buy alcohol—booze—they have to prove that they are of a certain age; they have to prove who they are. If someone wants to get a certain job, take out some sort of loan and or make a financial transaction, they have to prove who they are, so there is a precedent for such proof. Lastly, we have the technical know-how to tackle this issue. It is out there and we can use it.
I want to make it very clear to the Government that it will not be easy but we have to get the identification issue sorted out. It would be a hugely valuable achievement to pull this one off, because I never again want to hear the sort of stuff that I have been hearing in this debate, such as how the hon. Member for Stroud and many others have had this dreadful stuff flung at them. It is just the lowest of the low.

Laura Trott: I, alongside everyone else, want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing such an important debate. I start with the basic principle that what is illegal offline must be illegal online. If a person shouts and threatens to murder someone in the street, if they threaten to rape them, if they are racist, if they stalk someone: these are crimes and people must be held accountable for them. However, by enabling anonymity online, we are allowing people to get away. We are encouraging lawlessness and that must be stopped.
We have heard many reasons today why anonymity is important, such as if someone is a whistleblower, if they are a victim of sexual assault or if they are simply writing a blog about something that is not their day job. These are all reasons why anonymity is important, but a person must waive that right when they commit a crime. At the moment, it is far too difficult for the police to find out who the perpetrators are. It can take up to a year in some cases, even in very serious cases, to track down the authors of these offending tweets and so on. That is what we have to change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) was absolutely right when he said that we need to see more action from social media companies, but we also need to clear up the law, so that it is simple and easy for the police to track down perpetrators. Tackling anonymity is important, because it not just shields criminals, but encourages lawlessness. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) talked earlier about the Law Commission’s finding that anonymity facilitates and encourages abusive behaviours. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud was absolutely right when she said that it is just a hop, skip and a jump between people behaving badly online and that translating into violence on the street.
We have spoken a lot this week, and in preceding weeks, about how we absolutely need to tackle violence against women. When we see data from Amnesty International on the number of women affected, it does even more to build the case that we need to tackle anonymity. We need to make sure people are held accountable for what they do online, and we need to make sure that the absolutely shocking stories we have heard today cannot be repeated. The Government are doing a lot in the online harms Bill, and this would be a worthy addition.

Claire Hanna: I thank all Members on both sides of the House who are working together to address this issue.
As many people live increasingly online, never more so than during the past year, it is time to get serious about making the online world safer and protecting pluralism, democracy and the mental health of the many people who engage online. As I suspect most Members will know, particularly female Members, online abuse from anonymous accounts has sadly become part of daily life for most roles in public life. Social media is a vital tool for engagement, to listen as well as to broadcast, so it is a problem when people have to wade through pointless abuse, perhaps gendered, sectarian or racist, particularly from accounts that appear to have been set up for precisely that reason.
Although there are tools to report and block accounts, it usually has to be done by the victim of abuse, after the abuse has been experienced and the damage done. This has a cumulative effect, and it is easy to see how it is being harnessed politically in something of a war of attrition against opposing political voices. This is a new manifestation of a phenomenon familiar in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, of low-level, persistent abuse and intimidation that is designed to wear down an opponent to the extent that they decide that expressing a particular viewpoint just is not worth the hassle.
Misinformation is an additional and pressing concern with far-reaching consequences, whether through sowing distrust and hate or more literal and immediate impacts, as with systematic misinformation about the covid-19 pandemic. Most concerning of all is the harmful impact that anonymous abuse can have on young or vulnerable people. Research shows that bullying and receiving content they wish they had not seen is widespread among young people, and it is mainly sent by people who are not prepared to attach their own name. We have heard tragic stories of online bullying of adults and young people—bullying that may continue 24 hours a day, following people into their homes and bedrooms, in a way that is impossible to escape.
I welcome the moves in the online harms Bill towards greater regulation and against anonymity where it is used for harmful purposes. Many Members have outlined some of the reasons why people may choose and need to act anonymously, but the internet is essentially a large public space with an antisocial behaviour problem. We design and shape our physical environment to promote safety. If the companies have failed to do that, the Government should step in. Slightly tangentially, Australia’s regulation of news content shows that, although it is an international problem, national Governments can tackle it.
The online world is a great place to engage, communicate and connect, but we need action now to harness it for good and to protect vulnerable people and pluralism.

Jamie Wallis: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate. It is evident, from what everyone has said, that this is a clear and present issue that needs action. I am therefore grateful to the Government for consulting on this and for promising to introduce the online safety Bill, hopefully as soon as this year.
The White Paper sets out a sensible approach to what will be quite a dramatic overhaul of how our online world is regulated. It is right to take this action, and the severity of the issue justifies the impact of the proposed regulation on the platforms that facilitate online communications, recalling that fines of up to £18 million or 10% of annual turnover for noncompliance are being proposed.
This debate is well timed, as hon. Members will have seen a lot of misinformation, most of which originates online, regarding the efficacy and safety of covid-19 vaccines. This is a dangerous situation, and I am concerned. The actions and comments of some in the EU that have fuelled these malicious claims are, frankly, immoral, endangering not just their neighbour but their own citizens, too. Fortunately, 94% of the UK have had or are willing to have their dose, so the Government have obviously won this battle and have been more successful than many others in doing so.
It is not just misinformation. From racist or homophobic abuse to content designed to attack the self-esteem of vulnerable people, we have seen time and again that a dangerous minority of anonymous web users can do some truly horrid things from behind the safety of their screens. I welcome the Government’s proposals, and believe that the approach of regulating and placing some of the responsibility on the firms and platforms facilitating such communications is the correct one.
I will use the short time that I have left to make some observations about the proposals on verified ID. If they are optional, I am concerned about cross-platform penetration—for example, Google search reporting on the results of tweets and Facebook posts. There will be some technical difficulties in how we make cross-platform presentations apply.
Secondly, we all know the power of some of the big tech firms such as Facebook, Google and Apple. I believe that they currently have what is necessary to identify a lot of these online trolls, and that the Government forcing a duty of care on them is the biggest and most important step that we will take—bringing them to the table, making them responsible, and calling them out when they do not co-operate with law enforcement.

Paul Blomfield: I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing the debate and opening it so effectively. As the debate has illustrated, online and anonymous abuse takes many forms, and it is constantly evolving.
One form that was new to me last year was when my constituent, Helen Mort, told me of the harrowing time that she had faced because of the actions of someone online who is still unknown despite their cruel behaviour. She told me of her shock and fear when she learned that non-sexual images of her had been uploaded to a porn website, the users of which were then invited to edit the photos, merging Helen’s face with explicit and violent sexual images.
Deepfakes were made by unknown people from original, non-intimate images taken from Helen’s social media without her consent and superimposed on sexual content. When she spoke to the police about the images, she was told that they could not act because there was no crime. In England and Wales, under section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 it is an offence to non-consensually distribute a private sexual photograph or  film with the intent to cause distress to the person depicted. There is no offence if the original image is not private or sexual.
Clearly, that leaves people vulnerable to online abuse, suffering humiliation and distress, while the perpetrators of such acts can rest easy, knowing that there is no criminal offence for which they can be charged. The call for evidence in the Government’s recently reopened consultation on violence against women and girls is comprehensive in covering many types of online and image-based abuse, but it omits the creation of deepfakes. I hope that the Minister will agree with and pass on my concerns about that omission, and ask that it is included in the Government’s consideration of the issues.
I have discussed the matter with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who I understand cannot be present because she is chairing another debate. She has done important work on this issue, and I know that she shares my concerns. When the online harms Bill eventually arrives, we must look to it to outlaw the making, taking and sharing of intimate images without consent.
Although the delay to the Bill has been frustrating, it will enable us to take account of the Law Commission’s current review on this area, which is due to be published later this year. I hope that the Minister, when winding up, will agree that when the Bill comes forward it must be used as a vehicle for implementing improvements to the law to protect people in a position like Helen’s.

Catherine McKinnell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). I am the Petitions Committee Chair, and we have received numerous petitions on tackling online abuse, with petitioners identifying anonymity as a key contributing factor to the abuse of vulnerable people online. Last April, reality star Bobby Norris started a petition entitled, “Hold online trolls accountable for their online abuse via their IP address”, which quickly passed the 100,000 signature threshold to be considered for debate. Bobby suggested that people’s IP addresses should be used to ensure that people engaging in online abuse cannot simply open new accounts if they are blocked, but can have their social media accounts permanently deactivated.
Similarly, a petition to make verified identity a requirement for opening a social media account was created on 5 March by Katie Price, who is campaigning on the abuse faced by her son Harvey, and it already has nearly 170,000 signatures. In an evidence session last year, Katie told the Committee,
“if you go and get a mortgage, a car on HP, bank credit or whatever anyone wants, they want to know your name and address. They do credit checks…It is simple. Why can’t they do it on social media, so that if someone is being abusive then you have their address and you can find them?”
All this points to a growing public concern that anonymity allows people to get away with—and worse, encourages—horrendous abuse of a kind that would simply not be tolerated offline. Petitioners know that whatever measures we take will never be enough to stop the most determined trolls, but it is the same principle we implicitly understand when we lock our doors or install an alarm system: no home security measures will stop determined burglars, but they deter most would-be criminals.
I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, and we have seen that anonymity also has an impact on online hate speech. In October 2020, nearly 40% of reported antisemitic abuse online during that month came from fully anonymous or partially anonymous users. It is a worrying trend, and the Antisemitism Policy Trust has written a really important briefing on this issue, which I encourage the Minister to read. Several studies have shown that anonymity can make user behaviour more aggressive by creating environments less constrained by social norms. The Law Commission’s investigation found that
“anonymity online often facilitates and encourages abusive behaviours. Combined with an online disinhibition effect, abusive behaviours, such as pile-on harassment, are much easier to engage in on a practical level.”
We have tiptoed around this issue of online harms for far too long. The Government must now set out a clear plan to address online abuse and hate speech, and give people back control of their online lives.

Virginia Crosbie: I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for having secured this debate, and being a voice for those who have no voice. Anonymous online abuse is dreadful to experience. I do not suppose there is one among us here today who has not experienced it in one form or the other. It is not, of course, the preserve of politicians, the high profile or celebrities: it creeps into every crack in society, as keyboard warriors hide behind unidentifiable usernames. However, as Members of Parliament, we represent every constituent who is on the receiving end, and it is therefore incumbent upon us to take action on their behalf.
If I am honest, online abuse was not something that I experienced personally before becoming a politician, but in the past 16 months, I have felt the full force of it. Friends and colleagues tell me that it has become more commonplace over the past year, as people have been locked behind closed doors, struggling through the confusing ups and downs we have all experienced since covid hit; it seems to have become more acceptable to take it out on others online. On online platforms and public fora, egged on by an often equally anonymous audience, some people say things they would never normally dream of saying publicly, purely because their username gives them a level of anonymity. For those on the receiving end—even those who have strong, resilient support networks to protect them—the effect can be devastating, leading to mental and physical health crisis and even suicide.
Abuse like this is cowardly. These people have no respect for differences or democracy. They do not represent the vast majority of the population, yet despite the fact that we all recognise how abhorrent it is, it still goes on. Before things go too far; before more people suffer; before we hand a life of unhindered online bullying to our children, we need to take action. The online harms Bill will help to tackle anonymous abuse by putting a duty of care on companies towards their users, overseen by an independent regulator. There will be clear safety standards, mandatory reporting requirements and strong enforcement powers to deal with non-compliance. It   will remove the excuse that is sometimes rolled out that this is freedom of speech, or that such behaviour cannot be tackled when an account is anonymous.
We need to be absolutely clear: abuse is not the same as freedom of speech and being anonymous does not give anyone the right to abuse anyone else.

Rob Roberts: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate and taking the unusual step of seemingly unifying the entire House on this issue.
Throughout the pandemic, we have seen how social media can be a force for good. It has kept families and friends connected. It has allowed our children to continue their education from home. It has helped many elderly people living on their own to tackle feelings of loneliness and isolation. But these days, social media is often used for the wrong reasons: as a platform for abuse, trolling and bullying, often by anonymous users who hide behind a screen to bombard people with vile and sometimes threatening words.
The abuse has affected every type of user, including parents, celebrities and, indeed, Members of this House. Although I have experienced hateful bullying and online interactions since I was elected, I know that it is absolutely nothing in comparison to some of the atrocious abuse experienced by other Members, from the newest to some of the longest serving. Sadly, for many female Members, this abuse often goes further and results in harassment and threats. I give huge credit to my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), and all others in the House who, despite constant abuse from faceless trolls and bullies, have continued to work tirelessly for the good of their constituents and communities. For their resilience alone, they are a credit to this House.
Of course, this is not a partisan issue. The shocking abuse that is received by the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has been well documented for its appalling and abhorrent nature. Not only does such abuse hurt the individual; it damages our political discourse and our ability to debate. It ultimately damages our democracy, as it acts as a deterrent to people becoming engaged in politics at all.
Abusive behaviour on social media is indiscriminate and impacts many of our nation’s celebrities, sports stars and public figures, particularly if they are female or part of the BAME or LGBT communities. In the sporting world, sadly not a week goes by without a new instance of a black footballer being racially abused. Even our nation’s heroes are not immune, with trolling even aimed at the late Captain Sir Tom Moore and his family—a man who served this country, raised tens of millions for the NHS and lifted the spirits of a nation. Despite all his efforts, he and his family were still subjected to online abuse.
I have to ask, when is enough? Where do we draw the line? How many more individuals—whether close friends or public figures—do we have to lose before we start to address this horrific online abuse and hate? I think we all agree that the answer is now, and it is long overdue. Sadly, I say all this secure in the knowledge that the tweets will have already started, attacking me for having the audacity to stand up and say, “Enough.” Enough.

Naseem Shah: With the advent of the online world, our experiences have changed and our networks have transformed. Although we have revolutionised our lives by connecting with people across the globe in ways that were unknown before, we have also sadly neglected the dangers and challenges that come with this online revolution. Let us be real. We all know how hurtful abuse can be, and yet for years we have allowed bucketsful of online abuse to go on by.
The online space has allowed some individuals to mask their characters and express hate in ways that would be utterly unacceptable in the real world. I know at first hand the level of abuse, hate and online threats that I have faced over the years, and it is happening online today. I know at first hand how a single tweet—which was up for less than eight minutes—can be misrepresented and exaggerated to wrongfully define an individual and cause an avalanche of hate and abuse. Due to that one single tweet, an individual was sent to prison for threats that he made to my life and Leave.EU was sued for misrepresenting me.
But what will happen to the hundreds of anonymous accounts whose Islamophobic, racist, misogynistic and hate-filled threats are left unchallenged on social media—the tweets of me wearing a hijab, falsely labelling me as an Islamist paedophile admirer, those describing me as a cancer that will lead to my destruction, and the hundreds of others that are still online today? In the real world we have hate crime laws and defamation laws, but for the anonymous trolls the online space has become a free-for-all.
This debate is not just about my experiences, or those of fellow parliamentarians, of the online abuse that we face daily; it is also about the experiences of ordinary people whose stories we never hear. We have the privilege of sharing our experiences in places such as Parliament, yet we still face this abuse, which is without any consequences. What hope do my constituents have?
The online harms Bill is meant to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to legislate for the online world, so that we can protect freedom of expression without allowing hate, misinformation, and bullying to go unchecked. However, the Government have failed to deliver such legislation, and have watered down the contents of the Bill, leaving it with little effect. The very prejudices that we have fought to tackle over years have resurfaced online. It is almost as if the racism that was once expressed on the street has just moved anonymously online.
Parliament’s primary role might not be to change the moral conscience of those in society, but it is definitely to legislate against harm, and to protect all citizens of this country. I will end with this quote from the great Dr Martin Luther King which, sadly, I believe is still relevant today:
“Morality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless.”

Sara Britcliffe: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this important debate. For me, online abuse increased when I became the Member of Parliament for Hyndburn, and it has included death threats, threats against my friends, my family, and a constant barrage  of abuse. I cannot pretend that those words have not sometimes affected me and given me sleepless nights, worrying about my wellbeing and that of my loved ones. I have often defended the right to debate, whether in person or online, and I stand by that. However, it is unacceptable for a person to receive online abuse for their opinions, appearance, gender, or any other reason. Internet companies need to hold online trolls to account for their words and the damage those words cause. It is cowardly to hide behind a screen and the anonymity that social media profiles create.
I am fortunate that I have good people around me, both inside and outside this House, who I can turn to when I received such abuse. However, there are people across this country who have no one to turn to, and nobody to remind them of their good qualities. As we all know, online abuse can cause irreparable emotional and psychological damage for victims. It is not a surprise that as online abuse has increased, mental health issues have increased among young people. This is a growing pandemic, and I am pleased that the online safety Bill will begin to address those painful issues by holding internet companies to account.
My constituents have regularly shown their support for greater accountability from social media platforms and online abusers, I have been blown away on numerous occasions by the online support I received when I have shared my experiences. Those outpourings of love and support are testament to the fact that social media can be a safe and positive place for everyone.
In their manifesto, the Government made a commitment to make the UK the safest place in the world to be online. That commitment shows their intent to bring about positive change, and I applaud Ministers for condemning such online abuse. I welcome the review of law enforcement powers to tackle illegal anonymous abuse online, and I look forward to the Law Commission’s recommendations for reform in that area. I hope that Ministers will seriously consider, where appropriate, whether to bring those recommendations into law as part of the online safety Bill. We must all join together to say, “Enough is enough”, and we need to take action on this now.

John Martin McDonnell: I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group, and on behalf of the NUJ, I wish to refer to the particular vulnerability of journalists, and the unprecedented virulence and level of the abuse, threats and harassment that takes place online. Even after the experience of a tsunami of abuse in recent years, the violent, threatening nature of abuse can still shock and cause real fears.
Let me cite two examples. Patricia Devlin, an award-winning crime reporter who works for the Sunday World newspaper, received a threat by direct message to her personal Facebook account. The sender threatened to rape her newborn son. It was signed with the name of the neo-Nazi terror group Combat 18, which has in the past had links to loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
It is not just journalists who work for national media outlets who are targeted. The political editor of the Liverpool Echo, Liam Thorp, has exposed the scale of threats against and abuse of journalists working in the  regional media. A perpetrator was jailed for two and a half years over death threats made to Liam and another Echo employee.
The NUJ has broadly welcomed the “National Action Plan for the Safety of Journalists” that the Government published this month, which stated:
“That there is a problem is undeniable. Too many journalists currently working in the UK do not feel safe from threats, abuse and physical harm”.
The words of Reporters Without Borders are cited in the plan:
“Harassing journalists has never been as easy as it is now.”
The NUJ will work with the Government and other partners on this issue to ensure the safety of journalists and that the strategy is implemented swiftly.
The cornerstones of any strategy to ensure that we have thriving, high-quality national and local journalism to uphold our democracy have to be not only firm legislative protections but a fully resourced independent media. An effective online safety Bill will be a critical component, but so will the securing of a stable future funding source for quality journalism. That is why the NUJ has thrown itself into the debate about not only the contents of the new legislation but the new funding opportunities to secure for the long term the quality journalism that is so critical to upholding our sense of community and our current democratic system.

Charlotte Nichols: It is impossible to overstate how much social media has advanced and become an inescapable part of people’s lives over the past 15 years. It has made the world a smaller, more accessible place, radically changed expectations of access and, yes, opened up new avenues for abuse, grooming and extremism.
The circumstances of the pandemic have been a petri dish for conspiracies, disinformation and hate speech, especially towards east and south-east Asian people, as powerfully highlighted in this place by the campaigning work of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). It can seem that social media companies are too big, too global and too all-encompassing for us to be able to regulate or hold them to account, but we must demand standards and protections to ensure online safety.
The Community Security Trust noted in its most recent report that 44% of the 789 recorded antisemitic incidents between January and June 2020 occurred online, and the anti-extremism campaign HOPE not hate says that
“the far right’s use of the web to promote, plan and assist in terrorism is something HOPE not hate has increasingly witnessed in recent years.”
The Antisemitism Policy Trust is clear that anonymity encourages conversations to get more extreme, as it eliminates people’s desire to conform to social standards. The lessening of anonymity leads to more dialogue within social norms. Anonymity is the soil—or perhaps the manure—for growing extremism and abuse.
Of course, online abuse is not solely the preserve of anonymous accounts. Indeed, I have been subjected to a barrage of antisemitic, biphobic and other hateful harassment—including from candidates standing in this  May’s local elections—co-ordinated by Warrington Conservative association in WhatsApp chats that were later leaked. Those people have been emboldened by a political culture that has become utterly toxic, fuelled and accelerated by anonymous online abuse becoming normalised.
In addition to the harassment—particularly of women and minority communities—that we have heard about, I am especially concerned about the increasing sexual exploitation and abuse of children and the increasing threat of far-right online radicalisation. Children now are vulnerable to grooming in ways that no previous generation has been. Expectations of internet access start earlier than ever, and as hardware is now miniaturised and literally mobile, it is more likely to be accessed away from parental oversight than a traditional family desktop computer was. The threat of communicating with strangers, of catfishing or of other unexpected contact from sexual predators is real.
Anonymity is not the only issue that must be tackled. We need to finely balance the many, varied and legitimate needs for anonymity with the need to address harms perpetrated by anonymous accounts. But the fact that it is difficult and complicated is not a reason not to tackle it; it makes the task more necessary and urgent. I welcomed the Government’s 2019 White Paper; the matter must not be delayed further and I hope that the Government will introduce legislation as soon as possible.

Grahame Morris: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on an excellent introduction to the subject. I also wish to declare an interest as co-chair of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. I will use the time that I have this afternoon to address some of the union’s concerns about the online abuse of journalists, as my good and right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) did a little earlier in the debate.
Many journalists, particularly freelancers, use social media platforms such as Twitter to promote their work and the work of their news organisation and, as such, many have been the subject of vile abuse, rape and even death threats, as my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier. Women in particular are targets, with those who write about traditionally male topics, such as sport, technology or gaming, often singled out for particular abuse.
Like the NUJ, I welcome the publication of the national action plan for the safety of journalists—it is long overdue—but there is still a lot of work to do. May I draw to the attention of the Minister and the hon. Member for Stroud the fact that the internal moderated guidelines that were leaked to The Guardian revealed that Facebook’s bullying and harassment policy explicitly allows for public figures to be targeted in ways otherwise banned by the site, including calls for their death, which is incredible.
The NUJ supports the need for much greater transparency and accountability from the tech giants in tackling the online abuse of journalists and, indeed, of public figures. Social media messaging organisations are simply not acting to stop this abuse or to ban serial offenders, and the NUJ quite rightly insists that the new regulatory framework must make clear to companies their responsibilities to address this online harm. Crucially,  sanctions must exist, even against the tech giants, or perhaps especially against the tech giants, and applied if appropriate action is not taken. It is important to note that the online abuse of journalists is not always anonymous. The Government stated that improving public recognition of the value of journalists was a priority as part of their action plan. Public attacks by journalists on politicians also serve to undermine the public’s recognition of the value of journalists.
A thriving democracy requires a diverse press. Citizens making decisions in a democratic process must be properly informed. I hope that Ministers will meet with the NUJ ahead of the publication of the Bill to ensure that this is the case.

Taiwo Owatemi: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on what is a growing concern for me, my constituents and Members across the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) on securing this debate.
Social media platforms have connected us in a way that no one would have thought possible. From rapid instant messaging to sharing content on our everyday lives, we are immersed in readily accessible information and news in a way that our parents would have only dreamed of. In the past two decades, this immersion in an always on and always connected world has had another consequence. A study by the Turing Institute on online abuse in 2019 estimates that up to 40% of people in the UK have seen or been exposed to abusive content, and 10% to 20% have been targeted by abusive content. Worse still, that same year, Oxford Internet Surveys found that 27% of respondents had seen contents or imagery that were either cruel or hateful and that 10% had received abusive emails.
The ethnic breakdown makes for even more depressing reading: 41% of black respondents received abusive emails compared with just 7% of white respondents. That should come as no surprise to Members who witness this kind of content on a daily basis. They know all too well the sheer scale and impact that this abuse can have, particularly as this abuse is often anonymous and spread by accounts with peculiar user names with either eggs or silhouettes as profile pictures. While we must protect freedom of expression, there should be the same level of accountability for someone who commits abuse online as there is for someone who verbally abuses a person on the street. I know the strength of feeling across this issue in my own area, which is why I am supporting Coventry Youth Activists’ campaign for a change in Facebook’s policy so that it recognises hate speech and discrimination specifically targeting disabled people. At the moment, that form of discrimination is reported under the “other” category, which makes it seem acceptable and less important than other types of abuse. Tech giants can and must do more to protect the rights of their users to feel safe, both online and in their everyday lives, and their users’ free expression should not mean that they are free from consequences of their action. Social media companies can absolutely do more to make the online environment safer. They have the tools at their disposal, so do this Government. If the tech giants will not take action on it, it is up to the Government to give the regulators the resources and teeth they need  to take appropriate actions to safeguard all users, so that social media platforms can be a place for people to truly feel safe.

Rosie Winterton: No. 33 has withdrawn, so we are moving to our final speaker from the Back Benches, Christine Jardine.

Christine Jardine: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to have the last word from the Back Benches on this. Sadly, online abuse, the implications it can have and how we deal with it have become major issues in modern society, which are exacerbated by the availability of anonymity to bullies. Let us imagine what it would be like to come across a bully in a pub or a school and they could preserve their identity, so that very little could be done to bring them to justice for what they were doing. The figures we have on online bullying are frightening. One in five children has reported some form of online abuse in the past year. Sadly, we believe that many teenagers just do not report such abuse, as they see it as just part of society they have grown up with and something that is to be accepted. How depressing is that? Abuse, torment and threats have, apparently, for many of our young people become synonymous not only with social media, but with modern society and life. To those dealing with a mental health issue the implications of the stress of being subjected to a stream of abuse and bile is unthinkable. Vulnerabilities are exploited and deep-seated harm is caused. The mental health issues being faced by our young people are growing exponentially. It is not the work of genius to link the abuse they are suffering online with the impact it is having on their mental health. Age verification and education are important in reversing this trend, but we must also ensure that social media platforms take responsibility for what appears and, as many Members have said, we need stricter regulations.
One important thing we must also do is acknowledge that we have all suffered. I doubt any of us in this place have not been subject to online abuse from some anonymous source. We have to stand up and call it out. We have to recognise the scale of the problem that society is facing and the threat it poses to all of us, specifically to our young people. I urge the Government to take this on board and think about it every time; not just in specific legislation about social media or about the media, but in every piece of legislation where it could be important.

John Nicolson: Online abuse is a curse. Once upon a time when kids got bullied at school, that bullying stopped at the school gates. Even if they did not talk about their ordeals—and sadly, we know that many children feel that they cannot—back at home, in a loving household, they were safe. All that has changed with social media. Today, the bullies and trolls pursue their victims home and online. We know that this can be traumatic for children. We know that some have, tragically, taken their own lives as a result.
The sadism comes in many forms. Recently we have learned of the phenomenon of flashing GIFs posted and targeted at children with epilepsy, with the intention of causing seizures. Let that sink in for a moment— trolls targeting epileptic kids with potentially dangerous   consequences, again, under the guise of anonymity. Paedophiles have exploited the internet since its inception. With false identities and ever more sophisticated software, young people can be entrapped by those pretending to be someone they are not.
As a member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I have listened to evidence from the social media companies—TikTok, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. They all promise to target the problem, but they are all woefully unresponsive. I asked a TikTok boss recently why he was not more tenacious in tackling anti-vaccination disinformation targeted at young people. He said that his company had thousands of moderators hot on the heels of the anti-vaxxers. It only took me a few moments to find a TikTok account with hundreds of thousands of followers posting lies with impunity.
Politicians are not meant to moan, or we get called self-indulgent, but we all know the shocking abuse sent to women politicians in particular. When the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon revealed personal details of tragic miscarriages she had suffered, she was deluged by trolls mocking her or saying that she was lying about her family grief. A Holyrood magazine survey found that a third of MSPs had received a death threat, with a third of female MSPs receiving a threat of a sexual nature in addition. Before the 2019 election, a survey showed that many female MPs who were not standing again cited the abuse they received online as a major factor in their decision.
Misogyny, homophobia and racism have sadly always been a part of politics, but they are now magnified by the perfect poisonous storm: a huge worldwide audience and anonymity. I have had a wee taste of it myself recently. I praised online a young trans constituent of mine last year who had bravely spoken of her life in a BBC documentary. Almost instantly, a sinister organisation called the LGB Alliance began trolling me. It offered the reward of a retweet to anyone who donated money to it in my name. I was, as a result, deluged by abuse from anonymous accounts. I was called a rape enabler, a misogynist and, although I am an openly gay man, a homophobe. As an openly gay man, I was also called a “greasy bender”.
The LGB Alliance was thrown off the country’s two largest crowdfunders as a hate group, but Twitter would not take its account down, despite it clearly and egregiously violating Twitter’s own rules. I am a man in my 50s. The experience was not pleasant, but I was acutely conscious of all the young trans people reading the venom and despairing. They have, after all, been subjected to a vile online onslaught in recent weeks and months.
There can be no accountability in anonymity. Social media is now so ingrained in our lives that it cannot be allowed to continue without some form of verification. The cowards who send death threats or seizure-inducing messages or who attempt to groom children would not dare be so bold if we knew who they were, or at least if the social media companies knew who they were. Of course, the trolling does not exclusively come from the UK. Abuse, misinformation and disinformation flood in from Russian bots, attempting to undermine our values and democracy, and over the course of the pandemic, they threaten our health with covid disinformation.
Like the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), I believe that verification is the best way to protect people online. That does not mean that people—especially those who are vulnerable—should not be able to use a nom de plume, but social media users should have the option to prove their identity. That could come with an equivalent to the blue tick for verified profiles on Twitter. Such verification would allow us to know who we are interacting with online and know that those we talk to are who they say they are. Users would also then be able to decide whether to block all non-verified users. This would offer protection to parents worried about their children’s safety online, to those who wish to avoid Russian and other bots, and to all of us who would choose to talk only to real people.
Who among us does not seek to stem the avalanche of poison, abuse and disinformation? Will the social media companies embrace such proposals and self-enforce? The evidence suggests not. The Government need to get tough. Soft-touch regulation is not working.

Jo Stevens: I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for securing this debate, which I know very many colleagues across the House wished to participate in. I, too, wish that we had had more time to listen to and debate this important aspect of online activity. As she so clearly articulated from personal experience, no woman should be prevented from doing her job because of online hate. Maternity leave is a hard-won right for women in this country—it was introduced by a Labour Government—and all women should be able to benefit from it without having to be subjected to abuse.
This has been a difficult debate to listen to, particularly the brave speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). The issues that this debate raises will resonate across the country because of the prevalence of online abuse. There were excellent contributions from Members across the House, including very thoughtful ones from my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon. Friends the Members for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi).
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned in her speech the charity Glitch, which found that almost half of women have reported experiencing online abuse since the beginning of the covid pandemic. Women from all walks of life are subjected to it, but particularly those in public life, from MPs to journalists to TV presenters.
Today’s debate has been a small snapshot of what has become a tsunami of vitriol, hate, misogyny and racism online, a cesspit that parts of public engagement online has sadly become. Just ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the journalist Nadine White or the rugby presenter Sonia McLaughlan. Glitch’s research found that 84% of its respondents experienced online abuse from strangers—a shocking statistic. Members know that much of the abuse directed at us is first seen by our  staff, and that can and does take a huge toll on them. Why would any girl or young woman stand for elected public office or become a journalist or a television presenter if this is what awaits them? It erodes our democracy and it erodes our society.
There will always be people who spew anonymous hate and abuse. In past years, it would be a letter hand-written with capital letters and green ink, which required some effort and the cost of a stamp. In today’s world, people have the internet at their fingertips. They have become emboldened and they have been joined by many others, sadly mainly men, who take advantage of unregulated globally powerful and very wealthy online platforms—which are, incidentally, also run by men—to attack and abuse women. Those attacks are copied and amplified to the point where it is normalised within public discourse online.
What should we as politicians and policymakers do to improve the situation? I will make two suggestions to the House. First, leadership should be demonstrated in this House—we heard lots of examples of that this afternoon. When my former colleague Paula Sherriff asked the Prime Minister to moderate
“offensive, dangerous or inflammatory language”,—[Official Report, 25 September 2019; Vol. 664, c. 793.]
the Prime Minister dismissed her request as “humbug”. Many of us in this Chamber were there to hear that at first hand. The way we conduct ourselves in this House has an impact on the world outside. When Government Ministers attack journalists and falsely accuse them of bad practice, they open them up to abuse, too.
Secondly, platforms that facilitate and permit abusers to operate need to be subject to the same regulatory framework that is applied to products on the market that carry a risk of harm, or cause harm to those who use them. We need a product safety regulatory approach for online platforms in the same way as we have them for medicines or children’s toys, to name two examples. If a product has a risk of harm, then the owner, creator or manufacturer—whatever we want to call them—should take steps to mitigate or remove that risk in order to operate. We have heard plenty of examples this afternoon of failures by companies to prevent their platforms from hosting and amplifying abuse and attacks. Algorithms promote this, because algorithms feed the platforms’ business models. Justifiable complaints are ignored, and community standards are weak and not enforced.
As several hon. Members have mentioned, the latest in a long line of shockingly negligent examples concerning Facebook emerged yesterday when it was revealed that its bullying and harassment policy explicitly allows for public figures to be targeted in ways otherwise banned on the site, including through death threats, according to internal moderator guidelines that were leaked to The Guardian. The public figures identified by Facebook include people whose claim to fame may simply be a large social media following or infrequent coverage in local newspapers.
We have heard lots of agreement across the House that anonymous accounts that attack people or spread hate should not be amplified, but nor should those that are not anonymous. While there are legitimate reasons for people to use a pseudonym online, it is clear that those accounts should be limited in what they do, and that other users should be able to limit their interaction with them. This could be done by the platforms now; it  could have been done years ago. There is far more that the platforms could do using technology to prevent abuse from being hosted in the first place, and also to take it down quickly when it is reported.
This is why the online safety Bill is so vital and so urgent, and why it is so important that we get it right, so that it is not superseded by technological advancements. That is why Labour backs a principles-based approach. Despite insisting last week that the new law was a priority, the Government have yet again delayed the Bill. Although we expect it to be announced in the forthcoming Queen’s Speech, it is now likely to be more than five years after it was first promised that it will come into law. This delay is inexcusable, because we know that behaviour online can translate to behaviour offline.
The watering down of the measures initially proposed has dripped slowly, very slowly, since the White Paper was published two years ago next month. Why, if the Government are serious about clamping down on this abuse, would they keep in reserve criminal sanctions for senior company executives where there are repeated or aggravated breaches of the legislation, rather than implementing them immediately, as Labour has called for? Why would the Government water down the original proposals so that companies will be encouraged to set minimum terms and conditions, as they will be judged on how they enforce them? That will incentivise completely the wrong approach.
The Bill, whenever it eventually arrives, cannot be a lost opportunity to reset the dial on our online discourse. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We all recognise and largely agree on what the problems are, and many of us on both sides of the House agree on the solutions. Plenty of them were suggested today. The Government need to stop delaying, stop watering down, catch up with other countries that have taken the lead and get on with this legislation. What have we gained by waiting? Nothing. What is to be gained by waiting? Nothing. This House and the public are impatient to hear from the Government on this legislation.

Matt Warman: I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on tabling this important topic for debate. Online anonymity matters. It matters because it can give activists in oppressive regimes the means to organise. It matters because it can give whistleblowers the opportunity to speak out. It can give the uncertain teenager the means to research their sexuality or those who do not want to disclose it the option not to do so. It can give the most vulnerable in our society the chance to protect themselves from their abusers. But anonymity online can also give licence to those who threaten individuals, to those who threaten public figures and ultimately to those who threaten the foundational institutions of our economy and our democracy. We have heard powerful and shocking stories of that sort today.
Let us be clear: free speech is crucial, and a climate of fear creates a crisis for freedom of speech. That is why the Government’s online safety Bill is so important. For the first time, the social networks on which so much of this abuse is hosted will be required to enforce terms  and conditions that ban abuse and protect free speech. That is important not just for anonymous abuse; it is important in tackling the abuse that is far too prevalent from those who use their real names, too. Abuse online or offline, anonymous or obviously identifiable, is not acceptable, and this Government are balancing the benefits of anonymity for those who need it, free speech and the right of every citizen to feel safe. Nobody, not even the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), should be free anywhere to call for people to be lynched.
Several Members—my hon. Friends the Members for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) and a host of others—have made compelling cases for the option to verify users’ identity when signing up to social media. Such an approach could bring benefits, not least the potential to more easily identify those involved in serious harm and abuse online. Ofcom will be exploring how platforms can meet the duty of care, and we must ensure that there are no safe spaces for criminals online, but at the same time we must be mindful of the arguments, particularly from those users who rely on anonymity to protect their safety online.

Grahame Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Matt Warman: I will give way very briefly.

Grahame Morris: The Minister is very generous. I wonder whether he might address the point that was made by me and other hon. and right hon. Members regarding the threats and intimidation directed to members of the National Union of Journalists. I am sure he agrees that that is unacceptable. Would he agree to meet a delegation from the NUJ in advance of the publication of the Bill to listen to their concerns directly?

Matt Warman: As a former member of the NUJ, it would be churlish of me to reject such an invitation, and I know that we are keen to engage with the NUJ.
In December, we published the full Government response to the online harms White Paper consultation, which sets out the new expectations on companies to keep their users safe online. Services that host user-generated content or allow people to talk to others online will need to remove and limit the spread of illegal content, such as child sexual abuse and terrorist material. All companies will need to tackle illegal anonymous abuse on their services. All companies will need to assess the likelihood of children accessing their services and, if so, ensure additional protections. Companies with the largest audiences and high-risk features will have to take action in respect of content or activity on their services that is legal, but harmful to adults. That is because certain functionalities, such as the ability to share content or contact users anonymously, are more likely to give rise to harm. The regulator will set out how companies can fulfil their duty of care in codes of practice, including what measures are likely to be appropriate in the context of private communications. Users will be able to report anonymous abuse effectively, and should expect swift and effective responses from platforms.
The online safety Bill will be ready this year. Of course, the precise timings are subject to parliamentary time, but in the meantime we are already working closely with Ofcom to limit the implementation period to as short a  period as possible. We want all parliamentarians to feed in to this significant piece of work, and I encourage the Members who have contributed today to do that. We will continue working with Members of both Houses, and we will continue to listen to their concerns as we move through the passage of this legislation.
We are also clear that companies should not wait for legislation to be in place to take action, so I want to talk briefly about the measures that platforms are taking. For example, Facebook allows users to protect themselves from unwanted interactions. Instagram allows businesses and creator accounts to switch off direct messages from people they do not follow. Twitter has introduced a feature to limit replies to followers, providing users with more control over who they interact with. All of this is good news, but more work needs to be done in this area to keep all users safe online.
I also want to mention the police’s legal powers to investigate abusive behaviours. The police can already identify individuals who attempt to use anonymity to escape sanctions for online abuse where the activity is illegal. The UK-US data access agreement, which will shortly come into effect, allows UK law enforcement agencies to directly request information. It will significantly reduce the time required to obtain data for cases involving serious crimes.
Of course, we recognise that the law must continue reviewing this area as well, ensuring that the police have the necessary tools at their disposal to investigate anonymous abuse online. The Government are undertaking a review with law enforcement to ensure that the current powers that they have are sufficient to tackle illegal abuse online, anonymous or otherwise. The outcome of that work will inform the Government’s position in relation to illegal anonymous abuse online and the online safety regulatory framework, as will the Law Commission reviews into existing legislation on abusive and harmful communications, including deepfakes. That report is expected later this year.
The Government are committed to tackling harms online, including harms perpetrated anonymously. We know that those harms are not evenly spread. We know that they disproportionately affect women, they disproportionately affect minorities, they disproportionately affect trans people. As has been said, they also disproportionately affect journalists. Anonymous abuse can have a significant impact on victims, whether they are members of the public or high-profile public figures.
The regulatory framework and the criminal law reforms will better protect all users online while also safeguarding freedom of expression, because it is vital that we get this legislation right. We want all parliamentarians to feed into this significant and important piece of work. We will continue to work with Members of both Houses, and we are confident that our approach, through the online safety framework and the criminal law review, will tackle online abuse, including abuse perpetrated anonymously. I pay tribute to all those Members who have so powerfully brought the need to do so home to us all today.

Siobhan Baillie: I have been asked to be brief, so I will. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to go ahead. They rightly challenged me as to whether there should be another debate led by  me on this subject in a matter of months, but given that it was oversubscribed and given the passion that we have heard today, I think they can see the importance. I thank the sponsors, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
We heard the Minister rightly recognise the calls for verification, although we did not quite hear about the steps that could be taken and the importance of anonymity. I hope that the Minister and the DCMS team will meet me and a small number of Members to discuss that further, and perhaps set up a meeting with the tech companies so that we can talk that through. My thanks to everybody who has contributed; I am really chuffed with the support today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered online anonymity and anonymous abuse.

Rosie Winterton: We will have a very short, two-minute suspension to make the necessary arrangements, and then move swiftly on to the next debate.
Sitting suspended.

Covid-19: Hospitality Industry

[Relevant Documents: First Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Covid-19 and food supply, HC 263, and the Government Response, HC 841, and oral evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on 9 and 23 February 2021, on Covid-19 and food supply: follow up, HC 1156 e-petition 552201, Create a Minister for Hospitality in the UK Government, e-petition 329985, Give further financial support to the Events and Hospitality industry, and e-petition 572283, Extend the VAT at 5% for hospitality until at least March 2022.]

Selaine Saxby: I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the hospitality industry throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for co-sponsoring it. Without a doubt, the hospitality sector has been one of the hardest hit throughout the ongoing covid-19 pandemic. It will have been shut for 10 out of 14 months when it eventually reopens. I do not believe that many of us foresaw that a year ago when we entered the first lockdown.
Support for the sector is extensive across the House, as shown by the number of contributors today. This debate is almost as booked up as I understand much of the hospitality sector itself is, when allowed to reopen. With that in mind, I will keep my remarks brief and will not take interventions, to enable as many colleagues as possible to speak.
In 2019, the hospitality sector contributed £59.3 billion in gross value added to the UK economy—around 3% of total UK economic output. At the start of last year, there were almost a quarter of a million hospitality businesses in the UK. The sector is vital to my North Devon constituency, which is proud to boast 105 pubs, with almost 10% of all businesses being in the hospitality sector.
The latest research by UKHospitality shows that the sector will have lost £86 billion in revenue by the end of March 2021, down 68% on pre-pandemic figures. It would have been more were it not for the unprecedented support packages given by the Chancellor, combined with the innovation shown by the sector in adapting their businesses to become covid compliant, increase outdoor capacity, and become take-outs. Our North Devon “Take Out to Help Out” competition saw thousands of residents vote to support their favourite take-out that has helped them through lockdown, and many congratulations to the winner, Nartnapa Thai Kitchen in Lynton.
The sector is also wracked with coronavirus-related debt—an estimated £2 billion in rent debt and £6 billion in loans and other finance—which makes the recovery that bit more challenging. As someone who ran a debt-financed small business for 15 years, I know the toll that that type of balance sheet can take on small and medium-sized businesses, of which the sector has so many, and the extra pressure that it puts on achieving profitability, particularly for seasonal businesses that are so dependent on their summers to see them through the lean winter months.
Even assuming that the road map stays on track, the sector cannot fully reopen until 21 June. Some 60% of pubs may not reopen on 12 April, despite the Government’s  relaxing regulations to enable them to trade outdoors more easily. That will mean that the support will taper off before there is a full return to profitability, which is forecast to take at least six months after the restrictions are fully removed. In short, the Government support may be ending too early relative to their lockdown-lifting road map.
This summer will no doubt be busy for UK hospitality. We know that pubs are one of the top three reasons tourists visit the UK, so their survival is linked to our inbound tourism and its associated economic benefits. As we move into winter, wet-led pubs in particular are very dependent on their locals returning to the bar, which we know did not happen to historical levels last winter. Going back to the pub is a much easier ask than so many of the others that we have endured over the last year, but have our behaviours fundamentally changed during the pandemic? I hope not, as in many rural villages in constituencies such as mine the pub is the heart and soul of the village. We need to ensure that they can return to their former vibrancy at last orders.
Calls are increasing for a review of beer duty to target support into our pubs, bars, and clubs, which could be balanced with duty rises in the off-trade, given the ever growing debt that the country is in. The Chancellor has shown throughout this pandemic how quickly he and his colleagues in the Treasury can pivot and adapt to create new lifelines for businesses. While I pay tribute to his excellent work, perhaps the job is not yet done for hospitality.
I believe that a draught beer duty would be targeted, quickly actioned support and could play a crucial role in stopping so many of our vibrant pubs and other hospitality businesses from going under later in the year. Our pubs provide a safer environment for alcohol consumption than elsewhere, and we should do all we can to encourage people to return safely as soon as possible.
There are now 600,000 fewer jobs in the sector than before covid hit our shores, despite the unprecedented support of furlough. As hospitality businesses look to reopen, I hope that they will engage with the new Government packages to get people back into work, such as the kickstart scheme, and reach out to their local Jobcentre Plus. I know that in rural North Devon, hospitality businesses have not always engaged with their local jobcentre, with local ads or posters in the window historically sufficing, but a wide range of highly qualified people are now unfortunately looking for work and vacancies may well be filled more rapidly through this route than those pre-pandemic.
There are other areas in the broader hospitality sector whose pandemic has also been problematic, such as our contract caterers and wholesalers. These businesses were not required to close, but their trade has been limited mostly to the public sector, and they have unfortunately missed out on many grant payments. Breweries, especially local microbreweries such as GT Ales in Wrafton, despite reinventing themselves for home delivery, have had a challenging time.
The wedding industry and its supply chain, quite rightly, have been repeatedly highlighted as a sector in need, the important big day being intricately linked with hospitality. It is estimated that more than 200,000  weddings have been either cancelled or postponed since the first lockdown and that the sector to date has lost at least £6.4 billion, a figure that continues to rise. It is fair to say that the hospitality sector has received an unprecedented level of support across VAT reductions, business rate holidays, grants, loans, the job retention scheme, the freezing of alcohol rates and a wealth of other measures.
I have been in contact with my local hospitality sector and the national hospitality sector throughout this pandemic, and I very much hope that dialogue will continue as we emerge and build back better. The Chancellor said that he would do “whatever it takes” and indeed he has, but to prevent our vital and much loved hospitality sector suffering from long covid, they may just need a little more creative support in the coming months.

Rosie Winterton: We now have a three-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches. That will be on the screen in the Chamber and on screens virtually.

Jeff Smith: For my three minutes, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night-time economy, I want to focus on the night-time hospitality sector, which has been pretty much completely closed for over a year, but which makes a massive contribution to our economy and our tourism sector. Our recent APPG inquiry looked at the effect of the pandemic on the night-time economy and we found that without urgent support, many nightlife businesses could be lost. We are at the critical point. Lots of venues have just about survived until now but they are racking up debts and they need help, so I want to raise five issues briefly.
First, on debt, many businesses will be in arrears for rent, utility and other costs by the time that they can reopen and, when they reopen, creditors will expect to be paid. We need a solution for that amassed commercial debt, whether that is a shared burden approach to debt, as we have seen elsewhere, or support for long-term restructuring so that debt does not need to be paid off until businesses are able to do so over the long term.
We need specific sector support for businesses that have been hit harder than in almost any other sector and will not be able to fully reopen straightaway, and for individuals. Disproportionate numbers in the hospitality and events sectors are self-employed. Many still fall into the gaps in support and there is a strong case for extending the job retention scheme for the hospitality industry until summer 2021.
We need support from the culture recovery fund. It is a great idea, but the culture recovery fund has had a limited impact on night-time venues. Of £1.57 billion, only 12 nightclub-type venues have received funds. These are cultural hubs at the heart of our city and town centres and we need to look at the criteria for future support.
On the reopening plan, the Government set out a road map to reopening, which is welcome, but venues need to be able to open at the capacity that makes them viable, so it is important that the Government work quickly with the sector on testing or other mitigations that can allow venues to open. I am worried that the test events that are part of the events research programme  are not fully worked up yet. To make that happen, there has to be close partnership with the industry as soon as possible.
Finally, security is a key challenge for the sector, and I do not think that has yet been fully recognised. Because of covid, lots of security professionals have had to look for alternative jobs and many do not want to risk coming back to an uncertain future. Six in 10 late-night door supervisor positions are at risk of not being filled. That is important because venues rely on them to fulfil their licence requirements and cannot open without them. There will be high demand for the small numbers of door staff and we need to look at support and a solution.
I just have time to mention event cancellation insurance. Without a Government-backed insurance scheme, many festivals and big events will cancel this summer. France, Holland, Austria, Switzerland and Germany have all introduced some sort of Government-backed scheme. We need one to protect our world-leading events.
Nightclubs and music venues bring joy and a sense of community to our cities and towns. We cannot let these vital businesses fold. It jeopardises our wider economic recovery and leads to a massive cultural as well as economic loss to our country.

Kate Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate, and I agree with the many important points that she made. The unprecedented support that this Government have provided to hospitality businesses over the past year has undoubtedly saved many jobs and livelihoods across my constituency of Burton and Uttoxeter. However, there is still much more that can be done to help this industry recover from the biggest crisis that it has ever suffered.
Over the past few years, we have seen the slow decline of our high streets, as habits have changed and online shopping has taken over. We must not allow the same thing to happen to our community pubs and the breweries that support them. Supermarkets have stayed open and continued to meet the needs of shoppers during this period of lockdown, but as we follow the road map and restrictions ease, we must ensure that our local pubs are able and willing to welcome us back.
My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the high street’s “Shop Local” campaign, but will he support Carling’s campaign to “Support Your Local”? As colleagues will know, I am proud to represent the historic brewing town of Burton-on-Trent, where Carling is brewed by local people. The campaign highlights the role of the local pub—a place where old stories are remembered and new ones are made, and the best place for a nice cold pint, but much more than that, a place that is at the heart of our communities.
Pubs play a huge role in all our constituencies. They provide significant employment opportunities for young adults and are at the centre of our towns and villages. In Burton, pubs and breweries take centre stage in our town’s heritage. Over the past year, they have been working tirelessly to ensure that they keep customers safe, and so many have gone beyond their usual remit to support their communities throughout the pandemic.
The £352 billion package of support provided by the Government, including for the hospitality industry, has ensured that the sector has survived the difficulties of  the past year, but we must recognise the wider role that the British pub plays in our communities and ensure that pubs not only survive but thrive in our neighbourhoods, supporting jobs and growth in local areas.
The Chancellor announced that beer duty would be frozen this year, but I urge the Minister to look at the benefits of a new draught-beer duty rate specifically targeting wet-led community pubs and breweries, which have not been recipients under other policies. Many pubs and bars are in a perilous financial position, and many will not survive without help. I hope that, during the forthcoming review of alcohol duty, the Minister will reflect on these arguments and help to level the playing field between the price of beer sold in social community settings and cheap supermarket alcohol consumed at home.

Adam Holloway: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate. I will make just a couple of points, on dates and on data.
Earlier this afternoon, I rang a friend who runs the Griffin Inn in Sussex to ask about this, and he said that dates are vital. We must stick to any dates that we have. Over Christmas, of course, many establishments lost enormous amounts of money buying in stock that they then could not use. In his case, I think it was £25,000-worth of stuff.
On data, some people are having a very good time of it. Supermarkets are making a fortune. Pubs and hospitality have been amazingly supported by the Government, but we must not forget the point made by Ian Eldridge, who runs a restaurant in my constituency called Bartellas, that they still have enormous costs. They have employer contributions, lease purchase deals and lots of monthly contracts, and of course they also have maintenance.
My second point on data is a plea to the Minister and, indeed, the Prime Minister: things do seem to be going, thank God, in a very good direction in terms of hospitalisation and deaths, and if we can unlock hospitality earlier, let us not be dogmatic about it—let us do it. Let us reopen well-run hospitality, because I would much prefer my constituents to be drinking there than cramped in their front rooms.

Ben Lake: Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this very important debate.
I agree with a lot of the points that have been made by hon. Members who have spoken, but would like to add a few more. Despite the unprecedented support from every level of government, including the Welsh Government and local authorities, yesterday’s Office for National Statistics data offered quite a sobering reminder of the devastating impact that the pandemic continues to have on businesses and employment in Wales. A year into lockdown, the Welsh unemployment rate has risen by 1.1%, while Wales’s perennially high economic inactivity rate has reached 24.4%, meaning that a quarter of the Welsh workforce is either not in employment or not seeking employment. I hope this debate will be a helpful reminder to Government of the importance of the hospitality sector both as an opportunity  for jobs and for the way in which it helps particular regions, particularly coastal and rural areas, where other opportunities are sadly fewer and further between.
Before the pandemic, the hospitality sector contributed £59.3 billion to the UK economy and employed over 2.3 million workers across the UK. That in itself speaks for the significant contribution that the sector makes, but it was also an important gateway into the labour market for younger workers, with approximately one in 14 young adults employed in the pub and brewing sector alone. This sector is particularly important in rural areas such as my constituency of Ceredigion, where approximately 4,500 people, or 17% of the local workforce, are employed directly by the hospitality sector. It is worth noting that the sector, through local procurement and purchases from wholesalers such as Harlech Foodservice and Castell Howell, plays an important role in supporting the wider economy and rural incomes. Businesses in the hospitality supply chain, from food wholesalers and breweries to culinary suppliers and contract caterers, have not received as much attention, but they are essential for the success of the sector and should be supported by the Government.
While this month’s Budget contained several welcome measures for hospitality, I again urge the Chancellor to extend the 5% rate of VAT to the full financial year rather than six months and to consider proposals for a specific draught-beer duty to encourage on-premises consumption—a point that has been made very effectively by other hon. Members. Such measures would help to ensure that hospitality businesses can make the most of the upcoming summer season. Hopefully we can all look forward to a summer of unlocking. With potentially several months of restrictions, in various forms, to come, I urge the Government to be attentive to the needs of hospitality as a pivotal employer and significant economic multiplier. Particularly for those people in areas hardest hit by the pandemic, its survival is essential for post-pandemic recovery.

Holly Mumby-Croft: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate.
There is no doubt that it is thanks to the Government’s support schemes that we have been able to prevent many local hospitality businesses from being lost. Having worked with hundreds of them, I know that local businesses always have their employees and our community at heart. In turn, we in North Lincs value them and their ties with the community, with places like Mulligans Sports Bar sponsoring local darts, snooker and pool teams. Many of my local hospitality businesses did not let a pandemic stand in the way of their helping people. I could list many examples our area can be proud of. For example, the hospital’s sports and social club opened up space for NHS staff to use for meetings. The Shires and many, many other pubs have provided hot food options for those at home. Pubs such as the Queen’s Head in Kirton have provided lunch for volunteers and health workers in our vaccination centre.
Many local hotels provided accommodation to NHS workers and worked with North Lincolnshire Council to provide a place to stay for those who faced homelessness.  Many businesses were able to innovate. The Black Door in Scunthorpe, for example, has worked to share its door-to-door cocktails idea with businesses across the country. Many venues started offering takeaway and delivery options. Some even generously offered their space for vaccinations to take place. Venues such as the Old School in Messingham kept us really entertained with their uplifting social media posts. After a long, imposed state of slumber, hospitality businesses in Scunthorpe are raring to open. From Hibaldstow to Ashby, from Bottesford to Howsham, local business owners are preparing their teams and their premises to go back to work—but they still need help.
Moving forward, I urge the Government to continue to carefully review existing restrictions, ending them as soon as we can. I once again urge Ministers to provide further guidelines for the weddings industry, to allow socially distanced on-site look-arounds at places such as beautiful Cleatham Hall in my constituency, where there is space to operate safely. I ask Ministers to review support for kennels and catteries; to open up the kickstart scheme for long-standing clubs; and to consider suggestions for draught-beer duty relief. I welcome the expansion of the self-employment income support scheme eligibility criteria, but I hope that Ministers can work with colleagues in the Treasury to bring forward the date on which the fourth grants can be awarded, as many self-employed in my area need this support now.
Thanks to the incredible support package and some real northern grit, many hospitality businesses in my area are still with us. They are now pumping up the tyres at the speedway, stocking up the fridges in our restaurants, and polishing their pint glasses in our pubs. We must continue to support them so that on this beautiful spring day, we really can look forward to brighter months ahead, and a chance to build back these valued businesses in Scunthorpe.

Abena Oppong-Asare: Hospitality businesses in my constituency have had an enormously difficult year: not only have they been closed for many months, but when they have been allowed to open, they have faced a constantly changing set of rules and regulations. Many have not received the financial support they needed from the Government, and many are fearful for their future. I only have time to mention a couple of them, but their struggles are shared by countless other businesses across my constituency.
In December of last year, I visited the Abbey Arms in Abbey Wood as part of small business Saturday. Staff there told me about the challenges they faced and their uncertainty about the future. Of course, not long after that, all pubs were once again required to close. Other pub owners in my constituency have contacted me, including the owners of The Duchess of Kent in Erith and The Victoria in Belvedere. They need assurances from the Government that they will be treated fairly in the future and provided with support to reopen. The coming months will be particularly difficult for pubs and other venues with no outdoor space. Can the Minister set out what he will do to help these businesses? A great number of my constituents are rightly concerned about the future of their local pubs. Pubs are centres of our communities, and the Government urgently need to set out how they will help pubs not just to reopen, but to thrive, in the coming months and years.
The wedding and events sector has been extremely hard hit. Local family businesses have had to fight to survive over the past year, as nearly all their usual business has disappeared. Many businesses in the events sector have been repeatedly refused grant funding by Bexley council, which cites the Government’s tight criteria. These are businesses that have been allowed to fall through the cracks. The Government must look again at what more funding can be provided to help these businesses restart as restrictions allow. Of course, behind each of these businesses are people who have taken risks to start small businesses and contribute to our economy, our community, the people they employ and the supply chain of which they are part.
Hospitality workers are disproportionately likely to be women or from an ethnic minority background, and just this week, the Office for National Statistics published statistics showing that people under 25 account for 60% of the jobs lost since February 2020. The human toll of the pandemic has taken many forms, but we must not forget those who have lost their jobs or their businesses. We need action from the Government right now to ensure the hospitality industry is properly supported.

Mick Whitley: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
At long last, we find ourselves in the final stretch of the long war with covid-19. Thanks to the tireless efforts of NHS staff and volunteers, vaccination rates are soaring, and many of us are now eagerly looking forward to the gradual relaxation of lockdown measures and the reopening of shops, cafés, restaurants and pubs. However, for much of the hospitality industry, the next few months will be fraught with uncertainty and worry. Independent businesses up and down our high streets are in the midst of an intense cash crisis. Grants and loans have been exhausted; proprietors are being forced to defer bills and mortgage payments; over half of businesses in the accommodation and food services industry have just three months’ cash reserves; and many small businesses find themselves burdened with unmanageable levels of debt that could well sink our economic recovery. Once again, this Government are failing to do what is needed to protect the hospitality industry.
Time and again I have called in the House for a comprehensive package of support that gives owners and workers much needed security and peace of mind in the challenging months ahead. Instead, all this Government have delivered are piecemeal measures that have left much of the hospitality industry barely able to keep its head above water. Businesses today have access to lower levels of financial support than they did at the start of the pandemic, despite finding themselves in far more severe financial trouble. The Government were far too late in extending the furlough scheme and business rate relief—a delay that needlessly cost jobs. The March Budget contained no measures whatsoever to assist small businesses with much-needed debt restructuring.
The impact on workers has been devastating. Prior to the pandemic, more than 3 million people—8% of the entire UK workforce—worked in hospitality. Over the last year, a wave of redundancies has swept the sector, with the youngest and lowest-paid workers bearing the brunt. Our economic recovery will be built on the backs  of small businesses and our local high streets. We now need decisive action that gives independent businesses confidence in the future, and safeguards people’s livelihoods.
That is why Labour is calling for an ambitious high streets fightback fund that will give much-needed assistance to those businesses that have been most devastated by the pandemic. Labour’s plans will stop small to medium-sized enterprises being swallowed by a black hole of debt, by allowing businesses to start repaying Government loans only when they begin to grow again. Businesses must also be allowed to convert debts into employee ownership trusts, giving workers a real stake in the future of their workplaces. We must also create the conditions that allow local shops to compete with online retailers on a more equal footing, and give local authorities the powers they need to fill empty units as a means of revitalising our neglected high streets. Finally, we need action to tackle the scourge of low pay and insecure work that has plagued the hospitality industry for far too long. That means ensuring that every employee is paid at least the minimum wage and has a guaranteed number of hours each week.

Mark Pawsey: May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) has eloquently set out the substantial measures that the Government have put in place to support the hospitality industry, but where a sector is affected, there is also a massive impact on its supply chain. Over the past eight months, consumers have purchased their food in supermarkets. They have moved from out-of-home to in-home consumption, and supermarkets have done well, especially those selling foods, wines and beers that were previously available only at people’s local pub or restaurant.
There is an assumption that suppliers to the hospitality industry have been able to pivot to create products for the retail sector, but that is not the case. Many product lines are dedicated to hospitality, which has led to many suppliers losing stock through its going out of date and being wasted. Large quantities of cask ales have been poured away. Even when goods are not date-sensitive there are seasonal stocks, and suppliers have found that capital has been tied up in stock in warehouse space.
Wholesale suppliers work in high-volume, low-margin businesses with high fixed costs, meaning that a small fall in sales has a disproportionate impact on profitability. Many suppliers also have the challenge of customers who are unable to pay. Cash sales from one period are often used to pay suppliers for goods delivered in the previous period, and to that extent, many suppliers to the hospitality sector are acting as banks and funding their customers. Suppliers are unable to take action if a hospitality business simply does not have the cash.
I do not call for specific support for suppliers. The best outcome for suppliers is for their customers, and the hospitality sector, to get trading again. The road map out of lockdown gives us the date of 12 April for reopening outdoor hospitality, but that will be available only to limited outlets, such as those with pub gardens or big areas of pavement space in front of them. Therefore, 17 May, when indoor hospitality opens, will be a much more significant date. We know from previous experience that hospitality businesses can put in place measures to  keep customers safe. They still have screens, which are often still in place, and they are ready with supplies of sanitiser and wipes.
The key date of 21 June is when all restrictions will be lifted. Some are calling for the dates to come forward. I think that certainty is more important than doing it early. All businesses need time to get their plans in place, so let us give them that certainty. I ran a business, and I do not see how it is possible to manage a business without knowing when the customers will be there to receive the goods. The hospitality sector is looking forward to getting back to business, serving its customers, getting staff back into work, helping to get the economy moving again, rebuilding its supply chain and bringing people together, which it can do in a safe and secure manner.

Jamie Stone: I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing the debate. First, I want to mention a business in the town of Tain in my constituency called Platform 1864, which is a restaurant and pub run by a man called Graham Rooney. Graham Rooney started some years ago with absolutely nothing—not two beans to rub together—and he built the business up. He is a damn good chef. Then the pandemic hit, and we thought, “What’s going to happen to poor Graham?” It was exactly as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) said: he went into the takeaway business. People go online, order their scoff, and then he delivers it. My mouth waters when I think of his roast beef and Yorkshire pud, and my wife loves his prawn paella. He has traded his way out of the situation.

Lucy Powell: Give him a free meal!

Jamie Stone: There is nothing like a free advert in the House of Commons—whether I will get a free takeaway, I rather doubt; we shall see.
My constituency depends on the tourism industry, and the tourism industry depends on the hospitality industry. We have been in terror of any one of these businesses shutting down forever, because if that were to happen, it would impoverish the tourism product that we offer to visitors. The visitors would then say, “It’s not so much fun coming,” and they will not come, and we could end up in a downward spiral. Keeping these businesses going is utterly crucial.
I will conclude by mentioning another business, this time in the north of my constituency: Mackays Hotel in Wick. It is a great and famous old hotel, and it is owned by a man called Murray Lamont. He has been very wise in the way he has conducted himself. I would ring him up every so often during the pandemic to ask, “How’s it going, Murray?” He is a brave man; he would say, “We’re going to get through this.” I so admire the spirit of people like Graham Rooney and Murray Lamont.
Murray has four things that he wants me to mention in the Chamber. First, let us not shut off the reduced VAT rate too soon, because it is a life saver; I give thanks to the Government where it is due. Secondly, clarity on rules about reopening and travel would be invaluable. Where the Scottish Government are saying  one thing and the UK Government are saying another—and sometimes we wonder whether it is done to deliberately contradict the UK Government—that is not helpful. Thirdly, a package for capital investment would be helpful. Finally, we need to get back into training, because too many people are leaving the profession, and the profession will be denuded if it cannot offer the standard of cooking, service and so on. Let us hope we get through this pandemic, which we surely will, and let us hope we have a vibrant hospitality business to hit the ground running when the time comes.

Simon Jupp: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important debate. I am a Devonian born and bred. When I think about my home county, I think about the breath-taking views on the south-west coast path. I think of the vast swathes of the Jurassic coast, rolling countryside, Georgian seaside towns and beautiful villages stretching from Sidmouth to Exmouth. But not just the views make me smile. The warm welcome that visitors receive in our towns and villages—in the cafés, pubs, restaurants and hotels—also makes me smile.
The hospitality industry is the lifeblood of East Devon’s towns and villages, which I am incredibly proud to represent. There is no doubt that, without the financial support the Government have provided, many of the places that residents and visitors enjoy simply would not be around to reopen their doors. That financial support kept staff on the books, helped pay the rent and paused other payments and bills. I am pleased that the Government will inject extra cash into the industry with restart grants, as well as extending cuts to VAT and business rates. We must continue to recognise how vital the hospitality industry is and consider further steps to help the sector.
Everyone who works in the industry is an ambassador for both my county and our country. Straight after the Budget, I joined a call with hotel owners in Sidmouth, who welcomed the measures that the Chancellor announced. However, recruitment and retention remain a challenge. It is quite right that the Government want businesses to invest in their domestic workforce—to train them up and improve local skills—but it is also about getting across the message that hospitality is a skilled and rewarding career.
Working in hospitality involves a positive attitude and a strong work ethic. Many locally who started out in hospitality by taking a seasonal job to earn some extra money have risen to become integral parts of the management teams in their venues, or have started new ventures with experience that they gained. I will continue to work on this issue with businesses in East Devon and to look at ways the Government can ensure that the new, fairer immigration system works for them.
I have lost count of the number of times that I have raised the need for continued financial support for the hospitality industry with Ministers and on the Floor of the House. I am glad they heard the calls and responded in the Budget. People should have every confidence that they can go back into cafés, pubs, restaurants and hotels when they reopen, whether to meet friends and family or to have a quiet drink after what has been an exceptionally difficult year for us all. I am sure everyone will be welcomed safely back to East Devon.

Ruth Cadbury: I thank my co-sponsor of this debate, the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for her excellent opening speech.
The hospitality sector is where we celebrate, mourn, catch up, hold work and community events, raise money for good causes, or just grab a bite when there is no time to cook or when we are travelling. Hounslow borough has 630 hospitality sector businesses—restaurants and cafés, pubs and bars, hotels and many more. Some have been able to open for some of the pandemic, but others—particularly wet-led pubs, wedding caterers, large events venues and party organisers—have been completely closed for the majority of the time. The pandemic has had a huge impact on the whole sector, and many businesses may not reopen.
The pandemic and the uncertain future falls hard on the low-paid, who dominate the hospitality sector, as do the under-25s. Hospitality workers are more likely to have lost their jobs than have been furloughed, so they make up a significant proportion of the skyrocketing number of universal credit claims—there are more than 17,000 claimants in my constituency. Behind each one of our hospitality businesses are many others in the supply chain: from companies that provide towels and cleaning to taxis, musicians, event organisers, wholesale food suppliers and many more—businesses that have missed out on most of the covid relief schemes.
Until a year ago, the hotels in Hounslow and west London, being close to Heathrow, were full to the brim. However, the huge drop in international travel and the travel and tourism sector has had a huge impact, including for a business in Isleworth that makes airline food and has written to me. Again, I urge the Government to provide aviation communities such as Hounslow with the support that they desperately need.
Across the whole hospitality sector we are seeing great, viable businesses that are on the brink or have gone under because of the lack of timely and adequate support. I do wonder whether anyone in the Government has ever run a business anything like the ones that Members are concerned about.
By contrast, I pay tribute to the work done by Hounslow Council to support businesses in the hospitality sector. The council has developed a hospitality reopening safely toolkit; provided face-to-face business support to help with the reviewing and adaptation of premises; run recover and regrow courses online, which have built resilience; and helped to showcase the Shop Safe, Shop Local campaign, which has encouraged people to support our amazing local independent businesses.
I hope the Government will promise to listen to those in the sector and give them a clear and long-term plan, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said. They should bring in many of the other elements described today by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), so that we can move forward to what are hopefully better days for the sector.

Jane Stevenson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate and thank her for doing so.
The past 12 months have made us all appreciate things that we took for granted, and many of us are now desperate to get back to our hospitality sector. Whether it is our local pub or coffee shop or the favourite meal that we always order at the same restaurant, there can be no doubt that we have all missed such simple pleasures.
Our hospitality sector has been amazing over the past 12 months. As restrictions changed and came and went, businesses jumped through hoops to keep their staff safe and to welcome customers safely. They should be highly commended for that effort. Many have adapted their services, morphing into takeaway food outlets or offering home deliveries of afternoon teas or Sunday roasts. Even though times were bad for them, many still found time to help others, and I want to make special mention of the landlord of the Ashmore Inn, Kevin Ward, who set up a food bank in Ashmore Park. When I visited the Ashmore Inn, I was struck by Kevin’s typical Black Country spirit of helping other people and of community. The sense of community we have in our pubs in Wolverhampton and in the wider Black Country is something very special. In my maiden speech, I spoke of an epidemic of loneliness as our society changed and this is one reason I cherish our pubs, as lifelong friendships flourish. I talk to so many older people who have drunk in the same pub with the same group of friends for decades.
Although on occasion I did take issue in this place with the level of support to our wet-led pubs, I would like to thank the Government for the wide range of schemes to support our hospitality industry—there are too many to list. I also want to welcome the welcome back fund. Wolverhampton has secured £230,000 to get high streets and our city centre ready for summer and really help our hospitality industry to recover. I gently ask, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon did, that dialogue continues with industry bodies such as UKHospitality, CAMRA—the Campaign for Real Ale—the Society of Independent Brewers and the BFBi, based in my constituency, so that we can continue to look for any more help that might be needed, whether through extensions to VAT cuts, measures on business rates or other means. I have written to the Chancellor asking him to consider a cut in duty for beer served in pubs. That could be entirely funded by adding a small cost to beer purchased in supermarkets.
Despite the awful time for hospitality, I am an optimist. With the vaccination programme rolling out and summer coming, I look forward to getting back to one of the many fantastic restaurants, cafés and pubs in Wolverhampton.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Pre covid, the number of people who worked in Greater Manchester’s night-time economy alone stood at 414,000, which is 33% of Greater Manchester’s workforce, but as the rest of the country emerged from the first lockdown last year Greater Manchester was quickly propelled back into restrictions, with limited financial support. Half of businesses now do not expect to break even until the end of 2021. The insolvency risk has grown month on month in the sector and is now at its highest point since at least April 2020. UKHospitality predicts that a failure to act now to solve the rent crisis could trigger thousands of hospitality businesses to fail across the UK.
So what must the Government do? There are a few urgent steps they could take today. First, they could ensure that the millions still excluded from Government support receive financial support equivalent to the self-employment income support scheme and that this support is backdated. Secondly, they could provide Government-backed insurance and event cancellation insurance to give businesses and events full confidence to reopen and plan for the future when restrictions lift. Thirdly, they could provide an urgent and significant sector support package for hospitality, events and tourism, including a Government-backed solution to spiralling rent and commercial debt arrears, and revisit the business rates cap, which unfairly penalises large numbers of hospitality businesses, which will find themselves paying full rates just days after restrictions are fully lifted in June.
Fourthly, the Government could protect local brewers and micro-pubs by stopping the tax hike in proposed changes to the small brewers relief and review beer duty. Lastly, they could protect workers by ensuring that the furlough scheme can run for as long as it is needed; increasing statutory sick pay to a level that people can actually live on; and setting up a hospitality commission to identify a sector recovery plan as well as investigate unscrupulous and exploitative practices where they are found in the industry, such as fire and rehire and the denigration of employment terms.
All we ask for in Greater Manchester is the ability to protect jobs and income while we keep people safe and get back on our feet. So if the Government want to back their levelling-up rhetoric with real action, they will provide the economic support our workers and businesses need.

Robert Syms: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. We all know that, in the west country, hospitality is very important. It is responsible for many, many jobs. How quickly we get back to normal will depend on what levels of unemployment we have in our constituencies. I commend the Government for what they have done. When they had to work rapidly on the schemes to support people—whether it be the furlough scheme or the self-employment grant—they did so very efficiently. The whole British Government have been more functional and more efficient than I might have thought before the start of this crisis. When they have had to act, they have done so quite swiftly.
Where I have a slight difference with the British Government, which is why my voting record on one or two occasions has not been wholly in line with lockdown, is that I am still not convinced that hospitality and non-essential retail are as big a problem as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and others have suggested. Many of these businesses were running in the summer in a very covid-friendly way—many were encouraged to invest in being covid-safe. I still believe that they are a soft target that has been closed down too quickly.
The Government could make amends by looking at the data, considering the situation and, perhaps, speeding up the opening up of hospitality. There are some big groups in hospitality, but there are also an awful lot of small businesses. There are some people who retire on a pension to run a pub or a restaurant which is really a  labour of love as much as it is a profitable business. We need to get them open and functioning as quickly as possible.
I welcome the fact that pubs and restaurants will be able to open up outside on 12 April, but, looking at the data, I cannot see why they should have to wait a further five weeks before taking on inside trade. It is even longer for hotels and other parts of the sector.
My call on the Government today is to look at the data. With the vaccination programme going the way that it is—fingers crossed that that continues—we could get hospitality open very quickly. Everything is interdependent. The shopping areas in my constituency do best when there are pubs, bars and restaurants nearby, and pubs, bars and restaurants do best when the shopping areas are open. The area also does well when the caravan sites are open, which, thank goodness, they will be on 12 April, because that brings in thousands of people. Therefore, if we take out a whole sector, it has a major impact on the community.
The hospitality sector is important for jobs, particularly for young people who have suffered during this pandemic. We need to nurse this area back to health and I hope that the Government do so by speeding up the unlock and getting people back to business.

Giles Watling: I send my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this important debate.
My constituency of Clacton is all about tourism. Much of it was created for tourism. Hospitality is the cornerstone of our tourism offer, employing thousands of people and delivering hundreds of millions of pounds to the economy. Hospitality businesses—be they bed and breakfasts, hotels, cafés, bars, or pubs—can be found up and down our sunshine coast. In fact, according to the results of my recent covid recovery survey, for which I had a very good response and I thank everyone for responding to it, some 20% of our local businesses are in hospitality. Those businesses are full of hard-working staff who always offer fantastic service and a very warm welcome. They help to make Clacton the wonderful place that it is and I thank them for that.
Throughout the pandemic, it has been incredibly important to me to ensure that those businesses had all the support that we could get for them. The Government have stepped up to the plate over the past 12 months and Tendring District Council has been brilliant at delivering the new funding, alongside its own discretionary schemes. I know that the business rates holiday, the VAT cut extension and the new business loans have particularly benefited, and will continue to benefit, our hospitality businesses. The furlough and the self-employment income support schemes have also helped many individuals. These have been positive interventions and I have no doubt that they will continue until some form of normality is resumed.
Thankfully, with the success of the vaccine roll-out, it looks like we might be back to normality at the end of lockdown. Now we need to ensure that our hospitality businesses are ready to take advantage of the new opportunities that I am sure will come. I think that we will have a massive influx of domestic visitors to the Clacton constituency this year. Our local destinations  are already reporting a surge in demand for this summer as staycations are, unsurprisingly, proving popular again. Clacton’s beaches are, I think, the closest to London and the best. No hospitality business can afford to miss out on the opportunities that this influx will present, which is why the new restart grants will be so crucial. They will help our hospitality businesses to open safely—and safety is a key word. Although I welcome this potential influx, I ask that people act responsibly. If tourism businesses spend the money and open safely, people must respect that and act accordingly.
Speaking of support schemes, it is important that the Government’s work to help our arts, culture and sports institutions is recognised. We now have an additional £700 million to help these attractions as they reopen. One last word: please, please, we must get that beer differential to support on-sales, otherwise we might lose pubs again.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on her excellent speech introducing this important matter, which affects all our constituencies and our economy.
I think we are all looking forward to the unlocking of hospitality. Personally, I am looking forward to attending a three times postponed Van the Man concert at the Europa Hotel in Belfast in June, and then—the following weekend—attending the wedding of my best friend Stuart and his beloved Rachel; that’s me getting invited to it now, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As many Members have already mentioned, the wedding industry has been under immense pressure and it is important that it is supported by the Government in a very practical way. The hospitality sector is a key economic driver across the entirety of the UK. Indeed, my constituency regularly attracts over 1 million out-of-state visitors to the Giant’s Causeway and the North Antrim coast annually. That is a significant driver for our economy. Hotels from Ballycastle to Ballymena, restaurants and all sorts of other facilities are a key part of that employment cycle, and they all need support. Hospitality is Northern Ireland’s fourth largest private sector employer. It has a £2 billion turnover and purchases a third of all Northern Ireland’s agrifood productivity, so it is essential in driving the cycle of our economy. Two thirds of our entire tourism spend comes from hospitality. In the past 12 months, 70 million drinks and 60 million meals have gone unserved as a result of the lockdown. Debts of over £1 million a day are stacking up; £1.4 billion is the loss so far—and counting—to the income of those businesses.
We need four things. First, we urgently need a fixed date for the opening of our sector. We do not have one at all in Northern Ireland, and that needs to be flagged up immediately. I understand that Scotland and England at least have a date. Secondly, we need flexibility on furlough. Thirdly, debt is a massive issue; the Government must back a loan scheme that allows for the consolidation of the debts accrued and a flexible payback system. Fourthly, local government needs flexibility over how it spends money. Tourism Northern Ireland actually handed back to Westminster £5 million in the last few months because we do not have the flexibility to reallocate that money to the areas for which the bid was originally made. The Secretary of State is prepared to put his nose  into all sorts of matters in Northern Ireland. Put your nose into that matter, Minister, and fix that. Let us have the flexibility over those moneys and let us fix this sector.

Patricia Gibson: This pandemic has posed challenges for all of us and for every business, not least the hospitality sector. This very important but beleaguered industry—the third largest employer across the UK—will take some time to recover from this health pandemic. Parts of the industry are on the verge of collapse and it was a mistake for the UK Government not to provide the kind of sector-specific support that it so desperately needed. The VAT cut is welcome, but the industry faces a cliff-edge in September, which could prove a death-knell to those barely hanging on. The importance of extending the VAT cut until at least the end of the year must not be overlooked if we want to save as many businesses and jobs in the sector as possible. Many hospitality businesses operate on a seasonal basis, and therefore may have to wait until next year before their balance sheet starts to begin to look healthy again.
Despite my repeated representations, no consideration has been given to the unique challenges facing operators of hospitality businesses in island communities—such as Arran in my constituency, which has at times during this pandemic been subject to higher restriction levels than mainland communities—which are concerned that islands may not necessarily be able to exit the pandemic at the same time as mainland communities.
The Scottish Government are doing all they can with the limited powers they have, and their year-long hospitality rates relief remains more generous than the three-month relief offered in England. Indeed, Scotland has the most generous non-domestic rates regime in the UK, but we also need business interruption loan schemes to be converted into grants, something I called for last April, in order to save businesses and jobs. The pressing need for that grows by the day. From April the hospitality sector, already on its knees, will be expected to repay these loans, however gradually, and it is clear that many businesses in the sector will be unable to do so and will only add to the debt and job crisis that we face. So I ask the Minister: extend the VAT cut until at least the end of the year. Look at what additional support can be given to our island communities, given their unique circumstances. Convert business interruption loans to grants and continue furlough for as long as restrictions remain in place. The UK Government surely understand the need to avoid business failures across the sector, as well as mass job losses. That does not need to happen, and I urge the Minister to do all he can to help us avoid that outcome.

Eleanor Laing: Thank you. How we wish we could really go to Ayrshire—well, at least I do. But now we go to Cheadle, and Mary Robinson.

Mary Robinson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and welcome to Cheadle.
I am glad to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to reflect on the difficulties that hospitality has faced during the  pandemic. Those difficulties have been particularly hard-felt by businesses in areas such as Greater Manchester, which were placed under local restrictions and in higher tiers during the autumn, and have suffered for longer. The Government’s unprecedented support has certainly been welcomed, with the bounce back loan scheme, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and the furlough scheme, which have been lifelines for many; but we must now look forward and ensure that hospitality recovers and thrives as we emerge from the pandemic.
The wedding sector in particular has faced—and still faces—unique challenges, and the end remains some way off. While weddings in non-exceptional circumstances will be allowed from Monday, only six people including the couple will be able to attend, and outdoor receptions with more than 30 guests and any indoor receptions must wait until at least 21 June. Even sporting events and concerts could get a head-start on them.
Couples have understandably been reluctant to confirm wedding dates, fearing that the 21 June date might get delayed, leading some wedding businesses to say that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. All this is causing a backlog of weddings, and a demand that will need to be accommodated. For wedding venues it is not just about getting back to normal; it is about going faster than normal, so that couples do not have to wait years for their big day.
One possible solution I would like to put forward is for more early weekday weddings. We know that Mondays to Wednesdays are traditionally less popular days to tie the knot, so, just like with the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, could the Government consider support to encourage early weekday weddings?
It is vital that we help this unique part of the hospitality sector recover from the pandemic because it serves such an important social purpose. Weddings bring together families and communities that for the last year have only been able to see each other and gather online; and the marriages they celebrate are the foundation of our families and our society. That is also why it is so important that when weddings come back, they come back for good. Large gatherings would be the first casualties of any resurgence in covid cases, so it is vital for wedding venues that we get this virus firmly under control. But I am confident that we will do so, and secure the future of our wedding venues. We must give hospitality and the wedding sector the support and certainty that it needs to restart and thrive.

Eleanor Laing: We now go to Grahame Morris.

Grahame Morris: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Oh, I am sorry. We don’t go anywhere. Grahame Morris is here.

Grahame Morris: There is no need to apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Castle Eden Wood has come to the Commons. Thank you very much for calling me in this debate. I would also like to congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on promoting and securing the debate.
First, I want to reference my union. I urge the Minister to look at Unite the union’s fair hospitality charter and 10-point plan. The plan has been devised by people who work in the industry and it has a lot of merit.
I believe the Government should show some contrition in respect of the hospitality sector. Pre-covid, the hospitality and tourism sector employed about 3 million people, or about 8% of the UK workforce. Delays to the extension of the job retention scheme and uncertainty about that extension have led to redundancies and the termination of casual contracts. Lay-offs have resulted in the sharpest impact on jobs of any sector, with as many as 650,000 job losses this year.
Pubs and clubs very dear to my heart in my constituency spent many thousands of pounds at the beginning of the pandemic to be covid-compliant. I found myself agreeing with many Members, including the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms). These establishments were inspected and monitored. They addressed any covid safety shortcomings immediately, because any that failed to comply were closed by the local authority. I want to place on record my thanks to those businesses, which could have traded and employed people, for doing all they could to cut covid transmissions.
In my view, those businesses have been let down by the Government. Three national lockdowns have crippled the hospitality industry. Economic output in the sector was down 90% in April 2020, compared to February the previous year. I support the proposed extension of the VAT reduction beyond September to allow the sector to recover. When businesses are fighting for survival, they need a Government who are going to support them.
I want to say a few words about the small brewing industry, which is under threat from Government policy. In my constituency, the Castle Eden brewery is not only suffering from lack of demand and a lack of grant support, its business has been put at risk by the Government’s proposed changes to small brewers relief. There is a simple solution: retain the relief at 5,000 hectolitres and stop the proposed cut to 2,100 hectolitres. It would be a scandal if small brewers survive covid only to be put out of business by ill-conceived reforms to the small brewers relief.

Paul Howell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this debate.
The hospitality industry is the blood in the veins of our communities. It delivers so many things that make life worth living. It supplies the enjoyable days and occasions that, even before the pandemic, we all look back on fondly. Hospitality is not just about the special occasions; it is about the occasions we all treasure so much when they are taken away. It is the opportunity to have a coffee and a cake with an old friend. It is the opportunity to have a couple of pints while the world is put right. And yes, of course, it is about the weddings and the big birthdays. All have been stripped from us over the last year and it is imperative for the wellbeing of all that they are able to return as restrictions lift.
The hospitality industry has been impacted massively by the lack of celebrations, whether we are looking at a five-star hotel such as Rockliffe Hall, somewhere associated to a country park such as Hardwick Hall, or a pub with  rooms such as the County in Aycliffe village. It is also pubs such as the Royal Telegraph, also in Aycliffe village, and small brewers such as Alan Hogg at the Surtees Arms in Ferryhill. It is about the food chains that enable them to operate and the multitude of staff who spend their working hours giving exceptional service.
The actions taken to frustrate the pandemic could not have been more focused on this industry if they tried. The Chancellor did his best to afford some respite to parts of the industry in the summer and his initiatives in the Budget have been helpful, but there is so much more of this industry’s core that is on life support and at risk of being terminated. Please can we consider urgently removing the ban on takeaway sales of alcohol from licensed premises in the lockdown? So many of our communities rely on the local pub for so much more than being somewhere to go for a pint. They are a critical part of the social infrastructure we need. They were already under threat before covid-19, but now the risk is critical. The all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, which I co-chair, has clearly seen how vital social infrastructure is for communities to thrive. It has therefore promoted the concept of an automatic assumption of “asset of community value” status for the last pub in the village, which would recognise the centrality of pubs and clubs to village life.
I would encourage another look at extending the 5% VAT rate to alcohol sales on licensed premises, as well as an extension in time. Also, the variable duty proposals led by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) have attracted 79 Conservative colleagues in a letter already. I also ask for consideration of sectoral support for the hospitality industry, with an extension of both furlough and business support grants beyond September, as many will have only just opened their doors in June.
I noticed today that Durham County Council has announced further support from discretionary funds for hospitality businesses and the associated supply chains. I welcome that, and hope that we can all grasp the opportunities available to support those businesses, while co-ordinating the efforts in supporting our high streets. Whether it is pubs, hotels, coach companies, brewers, wedding suppliers or the supply chains that sit behind them, their survival is critical to us feeling the benefit of lockdown lifting, and giving our communities back the precious times they have missed. We need to go above and beyond for them to give them the opportunity to give us our good times back.

Mary Foy: The plan for a pint in our local or a meal in our favourite restaurant has been one of the simple ideas that has kept many of us going through the pandemic. These businesses are at the heart of many communities, acting as social hubs and boosting the local economy. Esh Winning needs the Stag’s Head; Brandon, the Brawn’s Den; and what Durham student experience is compete without a pre-lecture trip to Flat White? We cannot forget that when this cruel Government refused to feed our most vulnerable children during the school holidays, it was businesses such as the Drunken Duck in Durham that stepped up. In May, it was the Capital restaurant that delivered more than 100 free meals to our frontline NHS staff at University Hospital of North Durham.
That is why the Chancellor’s limited support for hospitality in the Budget was so disappointing. Yes, there were good elements to it, but the hospitality sector is facing incredible uncertainty, and the Budget fell well short of the recovery plan needed for the years ahead. Hospitality needs sector-specific support from Government that protects businesses and workers, such as an extended job retention scheme that ensures that no worker falls below the minimum wage, and is contingent upon greater rights for workers. That means guaranteed hours, utilising job sharing, and an end to fire-and-rehire tactics.
On top of that, over the last year businesses have taken on massive amounts of debt in order to stay afloat, and many now face a cashflow crisis. The Chancellor desperately needs to listen to Labour and introduce measures that will alleviate that pressure. Finally, the Government must recognise that 5,500 pubs and bars in the UK have closed since 2010. I urge the Government to help to address that by creating a hospitality commission that can identify the needs of the sector while helping to move it away from its reliance on low-paid, insecure work.
The hospitality sector provides many jobs to Durham, and attracts students to our university and tourists from across the world. I know that my respect for hospitality workers and businesses is shared by Members from all parties, so surely there is the collective will in this House to deliver a recovery strategy that secures the future of businesses while protecting the jobs and rights of workers. These businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. We simply have to ensure that they are still here not just come June, but next year and the year after that.

Emma Hardy: It has been an incredibly tough year for hospitality. Many businesses have faced the biggest economic decline of all the sectors in the economy, and workers have faced problems with being furloughed, reduced hours and job losses. I give credit to Hull City Council for the support that it has given to more than 5,000 local businesses, despite missing out on the Government’s high street fund, which only goes to prove that if people want help and support, it is Labour they need to turn to.
The situation was tough before the pandemic, but it has got worse, although we have had some cultural renewal and some good news. For example, the development of Humber St, the award-winning Deep and the maritime history project are all bringing people into the city centre to spend their money, and I do hope that this desire to staycation will continue that. I am particularly delighted that we have been able to save the Polar Bear and the Welly, which are two fantastic live music venues in my constituency.
The move online has only been accelerated by the pandemic, and there are a number of actions I would really like the Government to take. It is simply not fair that five US tech firms have not paid more than £1.3 billion in lost corporation tax, while at the same time our high streets are still desperately waiting for the business rates revaluation that the Government promised such a long time ago. If we want to give businesses the chance to recover and get footfall back in the city centre and people spending money, we need to look at extending support past June, because they simply will not be immediately viable.
We need to address the cash crisis. The rates and the rent make up over 30% of hospitality’s expenses, and 53% of accommodation and food businesses have said that they have less than three months of cash reserves left, which is incredibly concerning. I hope that the Government will put aside party politics and look seriously at Labour’s plan for debt recovery, and support businesses having to pay back the coronavirus business interruption loans or the bounce back loans only when they actually start to make money and can afford to do so. Again, they should look at our plans for a high street recovery fund, and reuse the money the supermarkets have not needed, since they have made so much during the pandemic, and give it to the small businesses that need the support. Of course, I always think that more can be done to support our pubs, because we will all need a drink after this pandemic.
I would also like to ask the Minister to look at the pledges from Unite the union, but because of time, I will instead write to the Minister and outline those, but they include allowing workers to keep all their tips and action against sexual harassment at work. I want to conclude by saying to the Minister, quite simply: he needs to put money back in people’s pockets; if they do not have money, none of this counts because they will not be able to spend anything.

Jane Hunt: I first congratulate my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), on securing such a vital debate. I declare an interest in that my husband works for a logistics company and deals directly with the hospitality sector in his role.
Our hospitality industry is incredibly important to local communities both socially and economically. Some 3,000 people in Loughborough constituency alone are employed in the hospitality sector, offering everything from the ability to rent a table cloth for an event to arranging worldwide conferences for major businesses, as well as providing a scrumptious meal and a pint of local real ale by an open fire or indeed at a Michelin-starred restaurant, or a piece of cake and a coffee and a chance to meet friends in town. I would like to take this opportunity to thank every single hospitality business for all they have done over the past year to adapt to very difficult circumstances and particularly to protect jobs.
I would also like to thank the Government for the part they have played in this, having rolled out the financial support measures. In addition, I am pleased that the Government recently published their road map for reopening, which I know has provided much-needed certainty to many businesses and individuals in my constituency, as well as the emphasis the Prime Minister has placed on not reimposing restrictions once they have been lifted.
Working with Loughborough businesses over the last year, the most frequently asked question as we come out of these restrictions is, “Please can we come out with certainty?” I believe we are on our way to achieving this. What we all must realise is that we are the people who can make that succeed or fail. We must as a whole nation stick to the rules on social distancing, wearing masks and washing our hands, even when we are vaccinated, so that we can help control the virus.
For many months now, I have been advocating the use of testing to allow occasions such as weddings, rugby matches, conferences and other large events to restart. I would like to reiterate this point to the Minister, because the events industry overlaps considerably with hospitality services and provides a vital source of income for many hospitality businesses in my constituency. I would therefore welcome an update from my hon. Friend on the Government’s plans to achieve this.
There is a famous saying in the hospitality sector, which is that customers may forget what you have said but they will never forget how you made them feel. Well, hospitality sector—get ready! We have forgotten what you said a year ago, but I think everyone in this Chamber remembers how they felt the last time they were able to do the simplest thing, like meet a friend for lunch or go for a drink. The whole country is waiting for that great British hospitality to start up again: welcome back!

Alex Davies-Jones: It is clear from contributions from Members across the House that the hospitality industry across the country really is on its knees. In my own constituency of Pontypridd, we have some fantastic hospitality venues and businesses. There is not time to name them all, but I want to give a shout-out to a few, including Alfred’s and the Bunch of Grapes in Pontypridd, the Windsor in Pontyclun, the Rhondda Bowl in Tonyrefail, the brilliant and delicious Glamorgan Brewery in Llantrisant and, of course, our Savoy Theatre and the Muni Arts Centre. Those are just a few examples of the venues and business that have been hugely impacted over the last year and, sadly, a year on, we can all see for ourselves that our hotels, pubs, restaurants and entertainment venues across the country are struggling.
Only yesterday I had the privilege of visiting the Miskin Manor Hotel, a spectacular wedding venue in my constituency, to plant a tree as part of its memorial to the lives lost at the hands of coronavirus. The team at Miskin Manor have, like so many others, relied on the furlough scheme, and they have some fantastic plans to kick-start trade again when lockdown restrictions ease here in Wales, yet for so many others, the lack of future planning from this Government’s financial support packages has caused long-term damage that may be impossible for businesses to recover from.
The Chancellor has repeatedly taken a stop-start approach to economic support, which has ultimately failed the hospitality industry. These last-minute actions have harmed the high street and caused businesses and workers distress at their inability to plan for the future. It cannot and should not be this way. The sad reality is that it could have been different if the UK Government had simply made a more serious response to coronavirus early on, and while hindsight is of course a wonderful thing, I cannot help but be extremely frustrated at the sheer lack of planning. It is clear that the support schemes that were put in place for an expected three-month crisis are now no longer fit for purpose 12 to 18 months on.
The Government claim that they are committed to levelling up and that they want to boost the economy and protect jobs. Well, it is going to take a lot more than soundbites from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to fix the situation in Pontypridd, let alone in the rest of the country. The reality is that they have utterly failed a  generation, and I fear that our young people will sadly be paying the price of the Government’s mistakes for many years to come. There needs to be an acknowledgement that businesses in the hospitality sector, which clearly employ young people, have an extremely difficult few months ahead as the economy reopens.
In the Budget, the Government had the opportunity to bring forward a plan to help businesses through the crisis and beyond, including debt restructuring and a jobs guarantee for the young, yet once again we saw little in the way of long-term future planning. If the Government are serious about businesses, they must include a commitment to supporting our high streets too. In Wales, I am proud that the Welsh Labour Government have understood the importance of supporting businesses big and small, right from the beginning. It is vital that the UK Government understand that the devastation caused by the pandemic is not going anywhere, and that businesses in the hospitality sector will need ongoing support, likely for many years to come. I urge the Minister to take these cries for help seriously and to work with colleagues across Government Departments to ensure that forward planning for future generations is consistently covered in the Government’s ongoing response to the pandemic.

Virginia Crosbie: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this important debate. Hospitality is the cornerstone of the economy in my constituency. Before 2020, the island hosted over 1 million overnight visitors each year and tourism brought in over £300 million in revenue. Almost a fifth of the island’s population are directly employed in the tourist industry and 12% of our VAT-registered businesses are in the hospitality trade. Of course, this does not take account of smaller businesses, or of the local supply chain that is dependent on those businesses. So when I say that covid-19 is having a significant impact on the economy of Ynys Môn, it is no exaggeration.
The first national lockdown in March last year came just at the start of our tourist season. Suddenly plans were thrown in the air, with bookings cancelled and refunds demanded. My inbox exploded with messages from deeply troubled small business owners. Many people on the island had sunk everything they had into businesses that now seem about to crumble into nothing. When the Chancellor brought out his first phase of support, it was a welcome beacon of hope for many. Of course, it was not a cure-all for everyone. It did not answer all the problems, but it gave hope that someone had a grip on what was needed to help. Through initiatives such as furlough, 100% business rates relief, small business grants and the VAT cut for hospitality, businesses such as Coffee Cups and Catch 22 were given the support that they so desperately needed.
When the summer came and those businesses could reopen, the Chancellor stepped in again, with eat out to help out. Ynys Môn saw 104 restaurants take part, with 74,000 meals claimed for, totalling nearly half a million pounds. Our hospitality businesses did us proud over the summer. Despite early concerns that tourism might lead to increased covid rates, our food and accommodation businesses complied with social distancing, personal protective equipment and sanitising measures, and our island’s figures stayed low.
We have been through a long winter, locked down by the Welsh Government’s firebreak over the half-term break in October, and again over the Christmas break. Many restaurants developed a new sideline in takeaway meals. I was delighted to run a competition last month to find our island’s favourite takeaway. I received hundreds of entries, with many people applauding the contribution that our restaurants and takeaways have made to our emotional wellbeing, if not always to our waistlines. The winner, the Pilot House Cafe in Penmon, is a great example of a business that has adapted to its circumstances over the past few months and made the most of what opportunity it could.
As vaccinations roll out, those businesses that have weathered the storm across the island, such as the Valley Hotel, the White Eagle, the Oyster Catcher and Dylan’s, are earnestly hoping that we can reopen soon, not only for our tourists but for our locals, who, like everyone else across the UK, are just desperate to enjoy a meal out and a drink with their friends.

Justin Madders: The last year has been difficult for us all, with every aspect of our lives and livelihoods impacted by covid, but the hospitality sector has perhaps faced more challenges than most. Apart from a few months over the summer, many pubs and clubs have not been able to trade at all, and when they have been able to open, they have faced such onerous trading conditions that, if they have chosen to trade, they have often done so at a loss.
I understand, of course, why restrictions were needed on how people interacted in pubs, but the way we ended up, in the space of a few weeks last September, lurching from debates about whether Scotch eggs were substantial meals to whether 10 pm closures did more harm than good shows just how confused the response was, with rapid, almost weekly changes to how pubs were meant to operate. That constant chopping and changing only added to the financial burden that pubs face. What about the farce of Test and Trace check-ins for hospitality venues? They were used 100 million times but resulted in only 284 alerts. The Government should make sure that these things work properly if they are going to insist on them in the future.
When I look at some of the pubs in my locality that have not opened their doors for a year, I worry that they may never do so again. We know that in the last decade, a pub has closed once every 14 hours. My concern is that that shocking figure may end up being dwarfed once we see the true impact of covid on the sector. We must look at the sector as a whole—not just the bit we see as customers, but those in the supply chain. The brewers, the cleaners, those who supply the vending machines and the pool tables—all those businesses rely on a thriving hospitality sector to survive, and the importance of their making it beyond the next three months must be clear.
It is welcome that we now have a clear road map for the opening of venues, which is necessary to give sectors confidence. The last thing they need—the last thing we all need—is the stop-start, boom-and-bust approach that we saw last year, when where a business was based and what it provided dictated whether it could open at all, almost on a day-to-day basis.
Even when pubs reopen on 12 April, we need to recognise that that does not mean all pubs will be able to reopen. Those that do not have outdoor facilities will still be shut, and, frankly, we cannot be confident that the great British summer will come early enough to encourage people to drink outside in April. That gap has to be bridged. We must also remember that, when we hopefully get to full reopening in May, the road map requires table service only to be in operation. With social distancing, that means there will be, by definition, a limit on the number of customers a pub can have, and that limit is likely to be well below the capacity it used to enjoy. Again, that is a gap that has to be bridged, and many Members have already spoken today about how we can do that.
We all hope that this lockdown is the last, but I hope it has been made clear to the Minister today that, even if that is the case, there will still be challenges to the sector for many months to come. I will do my best personally to support the hospitality sector—within reasonable limits, of course—but I cannot do it on my own, and the sector cannot do it without Government support until the pandemic is completely over.

Tim Loughton: There is no need to dream of going to Ayrshire, Madam Deputy Speaker; you know you are welcome to prop up the outside bars and pubs of Worthing and Shoreham at any time, as I know you like doing so much.
It is very difficult in three minutes to comment on what, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) said—I congratulate her on securing this debate—is such a big industry. It is a big industry, a very large revenue earner, a large taxpayer and a large employer. The fact that, in 2020, total revenues fell by some 54%, with potentially 600,000 jobs at stake, is very worrying. Undoubtedly, the many generous measures from the Chancellor have been a lifeline for many businesses and jobs, enabling them to survive the lockdown and hopefully to open up shortly. However, coastal communities such as mine are disproportionately reliant on the hospitality industry, and those businesses disproportionately employ young people, so there is a double whammy for already deprived coastal community areas and the young people in them.
Of course, this is not just about hospitality venues. There has been a significant impact on the suppliers and events service industries, as many hon. Members have said. I am talking about everything from the people making the pies and sausage rolls for football matches, who do not have a premises that they may have been able to get various grants for, to the wedding dressmakers—why on earth are we still limiting wedding receptions outside to 15 people, which is ridiculous?—to DJs, lighting suppliers and the kennels and catteries who do not have any customers because they are all stuck at home with their pets. It is vital that we do not delay any further. The industry needs certainty. The stop-start closures that many people have mentioned have been highly damaging. We have heard that 60% of pubs may not reopen on 12 April, and it is really frustrating that pubs cannot not be open, even outside, even with all the social-distancing measures that they have put in place, for the Easter bank holiday weekend.
Hotels have been particularly hard hit. Many of them cannot comply as easily with the regulation as self-catering and Airbnb accommodation. Many restaurants and pubs have not been able to benefit from carrying on their takeaway trade, and historic venues have ongoing maintenance costs for which they need to raise money. Although we will benefit from domestic tourism this year because of travel restraints, we are not going to benefit properly from unvaccinated Europeans coming in, which is a very lucrative part of the tourism industry.
We need to extend some of the generous measures. We need the 5% VAT rate to become permanent. The 20% rate does not sit easily with continental hospitality industries. We need to look again at the rate multiplier on business rates—the Chancellor needs to look at adjusting it downwards. Home drinking has brought in an £800 million windfall. The Chancellor has the leeway and capacity to be even more generous to the hospitality industry through this really important period. I hope he is listening—cheers to that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Alison Thewliss: I agree with what many speakers have said about hospitality. While this is a debate about hospitality, I see it very much in my constituency as a very interconnected ecosystem, because without live events and shopping in the city centre, people are not going to come in to spend money in the hospitality sector. There is no pre-theatre meal if people are not going to the theatre, and there will not be the drinks afterwards and the taxi home. Without people coming in for weddings, for example, there are fewer hotel stays and, without the huge conferences and events that Glasgow hosts, the hotel sector is struggling massively.
The wedding sector is huge, particularly in the Asian community in Glasgow. If people have not had the pleasure of attending an Asian wedding in Glasgow, perhaps they have watched the show, “Getting Hitched Asian Style”, on BBC Scotland, and I would certainly recommend it. These are incredibly glamorous and expensive events to put on, and I really feel for Saffron Events and others like it that have tried to diversify in lockdown but which are not able to put on the tremendously elaborate weddings that they usually would. I very much hope that they will be back doing what they love very soon.
It has been incredibly difficult for many of the venues in the city centre that rely on the passing trade of the SSE Hydro. All the restaurants in Finnieston had been booming since the Hydro came to town, and without that, it is much more of a struggle, even when the sector does diversify. Without venues operating such as the Barrowlands, King Tut’s, the King’s theatre, the Pavilion theatre, and all the other theatres and venues within the city centre, the other things that we enjoy very much in our city become much more difficult to sustain.
I urge the Government very much to take on board the errors that they made over the past year. They locked down too late and unlocked too early. The furlough dithering towards the autumn last year cost jobs in the sector—jobs that young people relied on and now cannot get. I ask the Government to look very carefully at extending the 5% VAT reduction for the rest of the year at the very least, as people have not benefited from that, because nobody has been able to go out to  restaurants, or to spend money at events, which also had the 5% cut, or on their hair, beauty and at salons, which would also like to see that 5% cut extended to their sector, which again brings many people into Glasgow city centre. We are looking at a sector that has become heavily indebted and dependent on the furlough scheme, and when that goes, the Government will have to think carefully about how it is supported for the rest of the year. It has been the most difficult year for a sector that demands so much of our public joy. I feel very sorry for everybody within that sector, but it is an ecosystem and the Government need to consider it as such. No business stands alone.

Neil Parish: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), on securing it. She is right to point out the importance of the hospitality industry to our economy in the west country. Before the pandemic, the hospitality and tourism sector was worth more than £2.5 billion to our local economy each year. That supported more than 3,000 businesses in Devon, and created more than £200 million of spending in the industry’s supply chains. Many of our hospitality businesses have suffered over the past year, and I am grateful for the support that the Government, both local and national, have provided.
As Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have a particularly strong interest in our food industry. During the first lockdown, we launched an inquiry into covid-19 and the food supply, as pubs, bars and restaurants shut down, and the companies and workers who supplied them found their revenue sources removed overnight. Farmers and food suppliers tried to move food originally destined for hospitality to supermarkets, but the adjustment was difficult. British dairy farmers, for example, lost more than £41 million. The Government stepped in to help the dairy sector with a hardship fund, but many other sectors supplying hospitality businesses have continued to struggle.
It is clear from our inquiries over the last year that it is not only cafés and pubs that need extra support, but also the small and medium-sized food-and-drink businesses that supply them. The Government’s support for hospitality will be only partially successful if supply chains collapse, and the same is true of the wedding industry. Large venues such as Deer Park country house in my constituency have received a good amount of support from retail, leisure and hospitality grants, as well as the new restart grants. However, it has been more difficult to target support for the florists, cakemakers, dressmakers, photographers, caterers, and musicians, who rely on the weddings and events industries for their businesses. The Government have generally gone for a “catch-all” approach, which I understand, instead of sector-specific support, but that has left some hard cases and a lot of confusion for some sectors.
There is a lot of financial support out there, and we must ensure that our constituents know about the support schemes and how to access them. That is why this debate is especially useful, as we tackle the final weeks of lockdown and look to reopen the economy. I hope that the Minister will continue to engage regularly with representatives from the hospitality sector, to ensure that businesses are aware of what specific support is available to them now and as they look to reopen.  I believe that the combination of tax cuts, cash grants, and the relaxation of planning laws over the next 12 months can help the many tourism and hospitality businesses in Tiverton and Honiton to survive and thrive, and I thank the Minister for her continued support.

Alistair Carmichael: The hospitality industry is of enormous importance to the Northern Isles, and an integral part of our well- developed visitor economy. Hospitality, I like to think, is something that comes very naturally to us in Orkney and Shetland. Indeed, we were described by one visitor to me a couple of years ago as being “dangerously hospitable”—I know exactly what he meant.
It is worth reflecting that this time last year, those in the visitor economy and hospitality industry were saying that local businesses feared that this situation would last for three winters. We would come out of six quiet months, and instead of the six good months that would normally be expected, businesses would be quiet, then there would again be the six quiet months of the winter. That is where we now are, except that this time last year, we believed, and indeed hoped, that we would be coming out of this. It is now clear that we are in fact some distance from being out of it. It is clear from the limited opening that we had in summer last year, that when it arrives, recovery will not come at a uniform pace. For self-catering businesses in Orkney and Shetland, business returned easily, but for the bed and breakfasts and hotels, it was a much more difficult path back to recovery.
It is also the case that in communities such as mine—I am sure this is true of rural communities across the whole country—the hospitality industry and the visitor economy are integrated with just about every other sector in our local economies. The craft industries, such as knitwear and jewellery manufacturers, depend on it. We have also seen the depression of hospitality across the whole of the United Kingdom; in Orkney and Shetland, that means that the premium producers of beef and lamb and the fish and shellfish producers are also suffering, because the restaurants are not open to take their products.
It feels like we have all had a year on a life support machine, as far as the visitor economy is concerned. Even as we emerge from that, it is still going to be necessary for some of the intensive care to continue. For the Government, that means that we cannot have immediate withdrawal of things like the furlough scheme: they will have to look at a tapering-off of that support, and it will have to be looked at sector by sector, and possibly even region by region. As others have said, the reduction of value-added tax for the hospitality industry has been of massive importance, and indeed there is a strong case, which many of us have made over many years, for it to become permanent. I do hope that that is something that the Treasury will now consider.

Greg Smith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this debate. I associate myself with the remarks made a few moments ago by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for East Worthing and Shoreham  (Tim Loughton) regarding the wedding sector and the wider events sector, but I want to focus my three minutes on pubs and small breweries, particularly in rural communities. A recent survey by the Countryside Alliance revealed the harsh reality that our pub trade faces. Only 34% of publicans who replied to that survey said they can hold out if they are shut until the summer, and we know from British Beer and Pub Association research that 60% of all pubs in the UK will remain closed after 12 April, even under the current road map. Losing pubs would be devastating and irreversible.
I welcome the Chancellor’s continued support in the form of additional grants, the extension to the job retention scheme, the 5% VAT rate, and the business rates holiday. However, there are some gaps that need to be addressed. I am backing the Countryside Alliance’s #UnlockInn campaign, particularly calling for all pubs to be permitted to serve takeaway alcohol right away. The current situation is perverse, given that supermarkets can continue to sell alcohol. Likewise, indoors trade should be permitted from 12 April. Ever since my election, I have been delighted to support the Long Live the Local campaign, calling for a beer tax cut to support our local pubs. I hope the ongoing alcohol duty review will conclude that a cut to beer duty will support our brewers and pubs and level the playing field. Likewise, the proposal from the Campaign for Real Ale for a draught-beer duty cut would further help level that playing field: modelling shows that just a 5% duty cut for draught beer could create 1,000 jobs in the on-trade.
Coupled with that is the need to reverse the proposed changes to small breweries relief. Some 2 million fewer pints of craft beer were brewed by small breweries last year, and two small breweries a week closed their doors for good last summer. There are four fantastic independent breweries in my constituency: Chiltern, XT, Vale and Blackpit. These businesses are set to be hard pressed by the proposed changes. A small brewery may have to pay up to £44,000 extra tax per year, putting jobs and their recovery at risk, and those changes will be introduced next January, giving businesses hit by covid little time to prepare. What is the point in helping the hospitality trade if there are not vibrant, diverse and local beers on offer when the economy reopens? Finally, it is absolutely crucial that the dates in the road map are kept to, or brought forward. That way, we can give our hospitality sector the best chance of recovery, and get the pints pouring once more.

Wendy Chamberlain: For about half of the past 12 months, the brilliant hospitality industry in North East Fife has been forced to close its doors. Obviously that has had a profound impact, from the Ship Inn in Elie, to Kingsbarns Distillery, to our many fantastic and historic golf clubs, to wedding venues such as Kinkell Byre, to street food like the Cheesy Toast Shack in St Andrews. There has been support, for which I am grateful, but I have spent much of the past year arguing for the people and businesses who either missed out on support or for whom the support received has been inadequate. My casework team have done a brilliant job in navigating through the often complex support schemes of both the UK and Scottish Governments.
All being well, this will be the last time that I speak on hospitality before the businesses in North East Fife can open their doors again on 26 April. I, for one, cannot wait to finish our door-knocking sessions with an ice cream from Jannetta’s in St Andrews. But it will not all be plain sailing from that point. Social distancing requirements, limits on households and table service will be a reality for all these businesses. Even though in Scotland indoor hospitality is opening on the same day as outdoor, no alcohol can be sold indoors initially, so there is a disadvantage for premises that do not have outdoor seating.
The obstacles go further. Mainland Scotland moves back into level 3, but that will mean travel restrictions preventing anyone from entering or leaving a local authority area. When Fife was in level 3 last year, that presented a real difficulty for many hospitality businesses in the area. Indeed, I have previously spoken in this place about the Peat Inn, which is a Michelin-starred restaurant that attracts most of its business from outwith Fife—tourists who come to stay in bed-and-breakfasts and hotels. Under level 3, it was legally able to open, but business was so limited that it was forced to shut its doors again. The Scottish Government’s approach thus far has been that businesses that can legally open are not eligible for the grant support available to level 4 areas, and that has not changed in intervening months since last autumn as we now enter the spring. It was a real difficulty then and it is still a real difficulty now.
It is hard to justify that lack of support: first, because they are Government restrictions that are hampering business by preventing travel into the kingdom of Fife—as many others have said, the likelihood of seeing overseas visitors this year is fast diminishing—and secondly, because both the UK and Scottish taxpayers have now provided so much support to businesses around the country through the furlough scheme, rates relief, and the small grants administered by local authorities. The whole point of that support has been to get those businesses through what has been, in effect, three winter seasons in a row, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said. Now, thanks to the public’s hard work in following lockdown restrictions, we are in a position where we can begin to recover, so let us not take the support away too early, or all the efforts over the last year will have been wasted. Now is the time to enable our businesses not just to survive but to thrive. Let us put recovery first.

Charlotte Nichols: I have now spoken in a number of debates as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pubs to highlight the existential threat to the trade from the events of the past year and to ask for clearer support for the sector. It is a shame that here I am again, repeating calls that have so far gone unanswered. For those of us who do not want to hear the last orders’ bell tolling for pubs in every single one of our constituencies, the Government must recognise what more needs to be done to sustain them until custom can properly return.
I welcomed the grants made available, including in the Budget, but many in the sector have been saying that they are insufficient. The British Institute of Innkeeping stated that
“these grants will not even cover the furlough contributions that will be needed to safeguard their teams until May, let alone June.”
The business rates holiday and VAT cut extension were also welcome, but do not make up for the losses that have accrued and will continue to accrue until pubs are able to open fully. Wet-led pubs, in particular, will continue to suffer. I am glad that they no longer need to comply with the farce of the Scotch egg test—may I say that its removal shows that it was a hollow necessity all along?—but they will not benefit from the VAT cut, which is restricted to food, soft drinks and accommodation. These problems are made even worse for pubs without beer gardens or outside space, which will still be on severely restricted capacity until at least 21 June.
Alongside our pubs, the brewers that supply them need support too. About 80% of the beer made by small producers, including the Coach House Brewing Company and Twisted Wheel Brew Company in Warrington North, and the 4Ts Brewery just over the Mersey from us, is sold in pubs. The devastating loss of trade, with pubs closed, 200 million fewer pints of craft beer brewed in comparison with 2019, and 6 million pints of beer poured down the drain this year, represents 10 years of lost growth for the sector. They desperately need compensation and support to recover.
Pubs and their suppliers deserve the support they need until they can reopen properly—a day to which we are all looking forward very much. I know that I am not alone in longing for the days of a pint or five in my local with friends and making new friends in the smoking area. As our freedom to enjoy those days comes back, we need to ensure that the sector is there in which to be able to enjoy that freedom.

Stephen Flynn: I commend the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important and topical debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said, a vibrant city centre is very much the sum of its parts: its retail, its leisure and its hospitality. On that point, I would like briefly to reflect on the terrible news from Aberdeen today that our local John Lewis store is to close. Some 265 good jobs are currently up in the air, and my heart goes out to each and every individual who is potentially impacted. I know that, across the political divide in Aberdeen, we will all unite to try to convince the organisation to take a different path—one that retains such a vital department store in the city of Aberdeen. It is probably apt to reflect on the importance of such a story in the wider context of a city centre, because we all know that when we go to city centres to enjoy what is on offer, it is not just for the pubs, the food, the cinemas or the parks; it is also for the shops. As I say, it is a collective, and we all need to be very mindful of that.
As we have heard from numerous Members, the last year has been an extremely challenging time for those in the hospitality sector. They have had to face myriad changing circumstances, be that in relation to social distancing, opening times or what they can and cannot serve. I have a great deal of sympathy for them in that regard. They have had to put up with an incredibly difficult set of circumstances, and I know that they have diligently tried to adhere to everything that has been put in front of them. I sincerely hope that in the not- too-distant future, we can all get back to enjoying ourselves in establishments across Scotland and the UK.
For my own part, I cannot wait to get back into BrewDog and down to the Cove Bay Hotel for some food or, indeed, to North East Fife, because I have a couple of vouchers for some places in St Andrews that I am desperate to use. I was given them at Christmas in the expectation that I would be there before now. It was nice to hear the remarks from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) about what her constituency has to offer; it is a wonderful part of the world.
We are all keen to get back out there and enjoy ourselves, because having that social contact with people in environments that we all love and enjoy is the very essence of our being. That is to come, but in the meantime, we need to reflect on the challenges that will still be there for the hospitality sector. When things open up, it will not simply be a case of “back to normal”. First, those in the sector will have to deal with the fact that restrictions are still in place, but they will also have to deal with the fact that consumer confidence is shattered. People are going to be a little bit anxious about doing what they previously did. It is incumbent on the UK Government to take cognisance of that fact, in particular in relation to VAT. The 5% cap for the hospitality sector has been a good move, but we need to see that extended until the end of the year, at least to allow businesses the certainty that they need.
That certainty is important. It was important last autumn, when businesses in Scotland tried to close due to public health reasons, and we asked the UK Government repeatedly to extend the furlough scheme. They delayed and delayed, and only at the last minute they decided to extend it on the basis of the situation in south-east England. We cannot allow that to happen again. Scotland does not have the powers that it should have in that regard. It is of much frustration to me, as I am sure the Minister will be aware, that we cannot borrow to try to fill the gap caused by the shortfalls in the UK Government’s schemes.
Of course, where we can take action, we have taken action. Scotland’s Finance Secretary delivered our Budget recently, and we went further than the UK Government on rates relief. I have heard today the frustration of several Members about business rates and the fact that in England there will be a taper of the support over the year. That is not the case in Scotland, where there will be 100% rates relief throughout the coming financial year. We are trying to provide the certainty that we can to hospitality businesses; it is time for the UK Government to step up and do likewise.
I am conscious of the time, so I will finish where I started, with some local narrative. Towards the end of last year, there was a lot of difficultly in the hospitality situation in Aberdeen and some challenges with adherence to social distancing and the like, but the hospitality sector in our city got together and created Aberdeen Hospitality Together. That re-instilled the confidence that we all needed. Dutifully led by Stuart McPhee from Siberia Bar & Hotel, people across a whole host of venues managed to put in place a format that people could believe in and trust. As we move out of lockdown in the coming weeks and months, that trust is going to be so vital. I look forward, as indeed does everyone else in the Chamber, to getting back into a pub and drinking far too many beers.

Lucy Powell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate.
In the interests of fairness, I wish to put on record the very vibrant, trendy fashionable nature of Manchester city centre, with its wide hospitality, cultural and night-time economy. I think I have in my constituency the most pubs and bars out of any Member in this House. I say that just in the interests of fairness, of course. I also put on record my admiration for and pride in our hospitality sector and supply chain and the difficult role that it has played in keeping us all safe this year.
The Government have a moral duty, as well as an economic imperative, to ensure that as many shuttered businesses as possible are able to reopen viably. We supported lockdown and the “whatever it takes” mantra, but we have seen economic support increasingly diverge from public health measures. This is wrong. There is also a huge economic cost in seeing successful businesses going to the wall through no fault of their own, with lost taxes, scarring unemployment and lower growth. In the end, we all pay more for not supporting businesses than we do for doing so.
The initial package of schemes—furlough, grants, loans, deferrals and so on—was welcome, but as time has gone on it has become increasingly clear that those schemes were okay for three months but not designed for the 12 to 18 months of lockdowns and lost trade that we have seen. The gaps at the start have become ever larger, and the debts, overheads and deferrals have mounted, leaving the sectors that are most in distress, such as hospitality, on the brink, facing huge uncertainty on rocky foundations.
It is clear from the Office for Budget Responsibility figures published with the Budget that there is a lack of ambition about the longer-term recovery, with low growth now seemingly accepted by the Government. The Chancellor is betting the farm on consumer spending doing all the heavy lifting. He is taking a big gamble that saving spending alone will drive the recovery. There are only so many haircuts and meals out that people can have in a short space of time, and for many, cuts to family budgets will take money out of local economies anyway. It is as if the Government cannot wait to get off the pitch. Having done the bare minimum to provide a safety net, the aftermath is not of their concern. This is the wrong choice for our economy.
The announcements in the Budget do not mean that the job is done. We saw that in the reaction to the Chancellor’s photo opportunity with a certain celebrity chef, which became his very own kitchen nightmare. There is still huge uncertainty. There is still a looming bombshell facing firms. There are still many hospitality businesses on the brink of going bust, and big gaps in the support for those in the supply chain and those who have been excluded from the start are getting bigger.
Let us take the gaps in support. Businesses could have just about survived them for three months, but are totally desperate after a year and counting. The wedding sector; the events industry; the night-time economy, including taxi drivers and security staff; supply-chain businesses; freelancers; and company directors, including festival organisers and small traders—all have been  abandoned. The additional restrictions grant has been too little, too late, caught up in red tape with complicated guidance creating a postcode lottery.
Debt is another issue that is pushing businesses to the edge and threatening the recovery. Companies have taken the loans, deferrals and moratoriums, but as trade slowly restarts and the debts are called in, businesses will go bust. This is an issue for the larger chains as well.
There are also many measures that Ministers have got wrong, making a bad situation worse. Business interruption insurance claims have been the bane of many businesses’ lives, with insurers failing to pay out—if a pandemic is not “business interruption”, what is? The news today that the Government are not prepared to help with insuring large events and festivals is a hammer blow to this summer’s recovery. The Chancellor’s job retention bonus, which businesses were relying on, has now been dumped. With the curfew, the substantial meal rule, and businesses open one day and closed the next, poor decisions have exacerbated the economic woes of the sector. Ministers should learn from these mistakes, but it is clear that they have not. Just yesterday, I was contacted by William Lees-Jones, a Manchester brewer, who rightly complained that there will only be a week’s notice before pubs’ outdoor opening is confirmed, with this being announced on a bank holiday. Hospitality businesses just think the Government do not get their sector.
Although the road map is welcome, it is not a road map for all, and for most is still way too uncertain to plan around: to buy stock, brew beer, bring back staff or book a wedding. The visitor economy is a big part of the hospitality ecosystem—tourism, conferences, events, sports, culture and weddings; for them, the road map still leads to a brick wall. The hospitality industry is vital to the recovery. It drove growth after the global financial crisis and, with the right help, it could do so again. As things stand, the industry will not be able to be the work-horse of job opportunities that it once was, especially for the young. We need a real plan to support hospitality to thrive, with the overhaul of business rates that is long overdue; real action on debts, with loans paid back on an income-contingent basis, as Labour proposes; a proper job support scheme to reduce unemployment and drive growth; powers and resources to reignite our towns, city centres and high streets through a hospitality and high street fightback fund; an extension of al fresco dining measures; more sector support, especially for the wet-led pubs; the freeing up of group businesses and chains from state aid rules when it comes to cash grants; and public health guidance which makes operating viable and is fair to all parts.
Hospitality businesses were the first to feel this crisis and will likely be the last out of it. Firms have seen four winters in a year, and no golden quarter. Every previously viable business that goes bust will lengthen and deepen the long tail of recovery. That is not just the Labour view, but the view of the International Monetary Fund, the Bank of England and the OECD. We have to support businesses today, tomorrow and through the recovery. The truth of the Budget was a Chancellor failing to do enough to stop insolvencies and to support long-term growth—that was the verdict of the OBR. Now, “whatever it takes” must mean just that, otherwise we will see a repeat of the mistakes of the last decade of low growth and stagnant living standards. We cannot afford to go back to business as usual.

Paul Scully: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing today’s debate. She has given me another stopping place in her constituency for us to have a drink in when we are eventually able to do so, the Bell Inn in Chittlehampton, and we will have to go to the Nartnapa Thai kitchen in Lynton to have a good meal there as well. This debate is important because the hospitality sector is so important. As we have heard, it is important for its contribution to the economy, for local high streets and communities, for the millions of local jobs that it creates, and for the health and wellbeing of us all. This debate has highlighted just how important the sector is, and I hope it will go some way to restoring public confidence and kickstarting the recovery as we see the road map to recovery.
We have heard of those local examples, including my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) talking about Carling’s “support your local” campaign. We have heard about restaurants such as Bartellas, and about cafés such as Coffee Cups, Catch 22 and the Pilot House in Ynys Môn. We heard about Mulligans Sports Bar supporting its local area in Scunthorpe. We know that nationally the hospitality sector is a big deal, employing about 1.3 million people across 162,000 businesses, but arguably it is even more important at the local level, providing that cornerstone of our high streets, securing local jobs and opportunities for local suppliers, supporting the events that attract visitors to towns and cities up and down the country, and providing space for family and friends to come together. In short, hospitality is the lifeblood of our communities, our society and our heritage.
Since the start of the pandemic, I have worked closely with the sector to understand the issues involved so that I can best represent its interests in Government. That engagement has helped to shape the business support package and ensured that as many hospitality businesses as possible had access to some form of support. Clearly, it would not have been possible to have a separate scheme for every sector and every industry, or to compensate every company for every pound lost as a result of the pandemic. The Government support package is designed to ensure that as many businesses as possible—from the large chains to the sole traders—qualify for some level of business support, with the aim of saving as many otherwise healthy businesses and jobs as possible.
That package included job retention measures, support for the self-employed, access to grants and loans, VAT cuts, business rates relief and the moratorium on commercial rent evictions. In addition, we have provided local authorities with £2 billion of funding to support those businesses that do not qualify for the local restriction support grants and the restart grants, including breweries; freelance and mobile businesses, which take in caterers, events, hair and beauty, and wedding-related businesses; tourism businesses, including group travel and tour operators, B&Bs, and events industry suppliers. I urge local authorities to use the discretionary additional restrictions grant funding generously to support those businesses and others that have not had other forms of support. After all, they could, as we have heard, play a critical role in attracting visitors to the city and town centres, as well as to their local areas, over the summer and beyond.
Equally, local authorities should have the guidance for restart grants to help them plan ahead and get the grants out quickly, so that businesses are in the best place to reopen at step 2 of the road map. None the less, no business support package can ever match the benefits of operating in an open marketplace. While the new restart grants and the additional restrictions grants are important to the reopening and recovery of hospitality businesses, local authorities also have a part to play in helping businesses to reopen safely, by making it easy for them to maximise outside seating, tables and street stores to serve food and drinks. That will not just help hospitality businesses to reopen in a way that provides extra capacity and therefore revenue, helping them to manage down accrued debts, but provide the sector with longer-term resilience.
I encourage local authorities to make use of the welcome back fund announced on Saturday 20 March and the additional restrictions grant funding to run publicity campaigns and to prepare for events such as street markets, festivals and all those sorts of things to help support local businesses. Campaigns and safe events will be vital in encouraging the return of shoppers to our town and city centres. At the same time, we need to make sure that we embed confidence by supporting local pubs, cafés and restaurants.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) raised the issue of those that had missed out on support, which I have already addressed, but a number of Members mentioned small brewers and the relief fund. The Chancellor has launched a technical consultation, which closes on 4 April, and I encourage all brewers and people interested in that sector to make sure that they have their say. Beer duty has been frozen for the second year in a row, saving drinkers £7.3 billion. The Government will set out details of the next stages of the review in due course.
We also heard from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley). I have been working with Colin Neill from Hospitality Ulster on the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland, and I am grateful for his feedback. I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is about time that we renewed the karaoke session that we had a few years ago in his constituency.
Finally, a number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), raised the issue of weddings. I value the fact that I was able to work with the weddings taskforce, which was brought together by the sector itself, involving a disparate number of businesses and voices focused on producing concentrated and collaborative work. We do need to do more to make sure that we can give them the certainty that they need as we get to step 2, and I will redouble my efforts to make sure that we can get that done.
In conclusion, the road map that the Prime Minister announced provides a gradual and cautious step-by-step—not stop-and-start—plan to reopen the economy. That, in tandem with the progress of the vaccination programme—bear in mind that at some points on Saturday, we were achieving something like 27 jabs a second—means that we are hopeful of keeping to our schedule.
Despite the progress over the last few months, we cannot pretend that the way forward is easy or that difficult choices do not lie ahead. For the sake of people across the country and for the NHS, we must remain cautious. We must remember hands, face and space.  Ventilation and fresh air will also be hugely important as we seek to reopen. That is why the road map starts with outdoor opening before we come indoors. The events research programme, which is looking at how we can have covid-secure events including larger weddings, will report back in May.
We remain cautiously optimistic. I look forward to returning to the hospitality sector, as I think we all do in this House.

Selaine Saxby: This is obviously the time of the evening when we should all be going to the pub or to our much-loved bars here in the House, where I probably owe colleagues who did not get to speak today a pint. I know they would have spoken with passion in support of their hospitality businesses and whetted appetites with their tantalising take-outs.
I thank the Minister for his response. He knows that a cold beer is on the bar whenever he wants to visit North Devon; I hope that the duty on it will reflect the calls made across the Chamber today. As the self-appointed one-woman tourist board for North Devon, I invite all Members to visit when the time is right. I hope that they will then understand why I am quite so passionate about ensuring support for the sector here, across the country and particularly in North Devon. I thank everyone for taking part today.

Eleanor Laing: The Question is as on the Order Paper. As many as are of that opinion say “Aye.” [Hon. Members: “Aye.”] I was looking for a more enthusiastic “Aye!” about pubs opening. Shall we do it again? As many as are of that opinion say “Aye!” [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] To the contrary “No”—the Ayes have it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for the hospitality industry throughout the covid-19 pandemic.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Insolvency

That the draft Administration (Restrictions on Disposal etc. to Connected Persons) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 24 February, be approved.—(Scott Mann.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Privatisation of York Hospital’s Emergency Department

Rachael Maskell: I rise to present this petition on the privatisation of York Hospital’s emergency department on behalf of my constituents in York Central.
When staff working in York Hospital’s emergency department were informed that Vocare—a profit-making subsidiary of Totally Plc—wanted to take over the running of the minor injuries unit, they were deeply disturbed, not least as we are in the midst of a pandemic, in which the staff have gone to extraordinary lengths to serve my community. I therefore thank the 14,191 residents of York who in just three weeks signed a petition online and in person to state clearly that their minor injuries unit must stay in the NHS—an incredible response. I am glad that intense discussions have ensued and trust that our NHS will remain in public hands.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to recognise that the proposal to outsource work done by the Emergency Department of York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is ill-conceived, poorly timed and against the interests of patients; to prevent this outsourcing to the private sector; and to revise these plans for York Teaching Hospital only when the Government has published its White Paper and subsequent Bill on NHS reorganisation.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
The petitioners of York declare that they oppose all proposals to move access to some services at York Hospital’s Emergency Department (initial assessment, streaming and minor injury care) away from the NHS to a private company; further that the Royal College of Emergency Medicine clearly states that the Emergency Department should control the front door of the Emergency Department, not some third-party organisation; further that clinical governance have not considered how this reorganisation will disrupt patient pathways and clinical networks; further that the governance have not considered how this will impact the clinical supervision of staff and governance of patient care; further that they have not fully engaged with the clinical specialists working in this filed; further that this extends the privatisation of the NHS in a critical care facility and that such a move is not in the interests of patient care or clinical governance within the Emergency Department; further that we are managing a very difficult pandemic where there should be no distraction from the delivery of clinical services; and notes that the Health Secretary expects to bring forward a White Paper outlining a reorganisation of the NHS, which could have implications for access to Emergency Departments, the treatment of minor injuries and trauma and general practice.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to recognise that the proposal to outsource work done by the Emergency Department of York Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust is ill-conceived, poorly timed and against the interests of patients; to prevent this outsourcing to the private sector; and to revise these plans for York Teaching Hospital only when the Government has published its White Paper and subsequent Bill on NHS reorganisation.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002654]

Waste Incinerators

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Robbie Moore: Madam Deputy Speaker, may I extend my thanks to you and Mr Speaker for granting this urgent personal debate on waste incineration? Before I get going, let me declare to the House that my family run and operate a plastic recycling business. There is much to cover in this debate, so in the short time that I have, I want specifically to talk about the Aire valley incinerator that is due to be constructed in my constituency.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Robbie Moore: On 8 December last year, the Environment Agency made the decision to award an environmental permit for a waste incinerator to be built in Marley, right on the outskirts of Keighley. The scheme was originally awarded planning consent by our local authority, Bradford Council, back in early 2017. That decision was in spite of huge local opposition. That opposition was led for many years by the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team, which is an excellent group. I must at this early stage in the debate give particular credit and extend my personal thanks to Simon Shimbles and Ian Hammond, who are part of the campaign team and have been working closely with me throughout the many conversations I have had, so that we can collectively raise our concerns. Their passion, dedication and acute attention to detail has shone throughout all our discussions.
This is a campaign team that has seen, over the last six years or so, its following and the involvement from local residents grow to over 6,000 people. The team has worked tirelessly over many years. In my view, since forming, they have represented the views of the many residents in Riddlesden, East Morton, Long Lee, Thwaites Brow, Keighley and our wider community far better on this subject than our local district council.
As I have indicated, I stand here in the full knowledge that the green light has been granted for the Aire valley incinerator to operate, so I want to pick up on some of the huge concerns that I and many others still have, and address some of the flawed decision making and disastrous decisions that have been adopted throughout the planning application and the environmental permit stages.
This is an incinerator that is to be built at the bottom of a valley in close proximity to schools, residential care homes, playing fields, people’s homes—spaces where children grow up and play. Yet despite that, and a huge number of other factors which I will go into, both the Environment Agency and Bradford Council, as the local planning authority, have deemed the construction and operation of the incinerator to be suitable and fit for our environment.
This has been a long-running issue. The environmental permit for the incinerator was granted last December, but the campaign against the project began way back in 2013. In October of that year, the very first planning  application for the incinerator was made to Bradford Council. Four years and three applications later, the Labour-run and controlled Bradford Council granted planning permission. However, throughout this whole period, many residents, including my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), questioned time and again whether the planning applications were scrutinised by Bradford Council in enough detail.
I only entered this place in 2019. I have therefore taken the time to look back at Labour-run Bradford Council’s report, which was produced by its assistant director for planning for a planning committee that met in February 2017. The report included a recommendation to grant planning permission. I have a copy of that report here and it makes worrying reading. It concludes that there are no community safety implications. Bradford Council’s air quality officer registered no objection. The Environment Agency registered no objection at the planning stage, commenting that
“We…have established that there are no show stoppers or serious concerns relating to the location of the proposed development”,
despite it being in close proximity to many homes and situated in the bottom of a valley.

Richard Holden: I am facing a very similar situation in the Delves Lane area of my constituency at the moment, where I have just heard that the local authority, Durham County Council, has done a deal with a local developer to not put forward planning permission until after the local elections. Is not that exactly the sort of issue that we are facing with these proposals when they come forward: shady backroom deals, often dragged out for longer in order to avoid democratic scrutiny? My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the issue he faces in his constituency.

Robbie Moore: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. To be quite honest, I am not surprised and I find that an absolute disgrace to hear. We are talking about incinerators being developed right next to people’s homes, in close proximity to schools, care homes, and where people will be growing up and wanting to thrive in a sustainable environment. I am sorry to hear that he is experiencing a similar situation with Durham County Council.
The planning committee report made comments that concluded that planning permission should be granted. I quote another worrying statement:
“The proposal addresses the waste needs of Bradford community in proximity to the waste arisings.”
Given that Keighley is situated on the periphery of Bradford district, that is factually incorrect. So I say to Labour-run Bradford Council: Keighley will not be treated as your dumping ground.
The report goes on:
“The proposal enhances the environment and”—
wait for it, Madam Deputy Speaker—
“promotes recycling.”
That is complete and utter nonsense. How on earth can burning waste be classed by Bradford Council as enhancing the quality of the environment, when it is known that particulate matter such as sulphates, nitrates, ammonia, sodium chloride and black carbon enter the atmosphere from such a process? I can only conclude that the council must be taking us in Keighley for fools. And  then to go on to say that the incinerator, which burns waste, promotes recycling—that goes beyond taking the biscuit.
Following Bradford Council’s planning approval, the applicant, Endless Energy, applied to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit, triggering a two-stage consultation process, with the second consultation taking place just last year. The Environment Agency promoted that it was “minded to approve” the permit—again, all this despite the valid concerns that had been raised by residents, the Aire Valley Against Incineration campaign team, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and myself.
If that was not bad enough, the Environment Agency decided to hold its supposedly open and transparent consultation right in the middle of a pandemic—a consultation, I might add, that took place wholly online, denying my residents with no digital connectivity or internet access the ability to contribute. That consultation contained over 50 documents for the general public to review, yet, due to the pandemic, those documents were not made publicly available in local libraries or community spaces as one would typically expect. I raised my concerns, and admittedly extra time was granted by the Environment Agency for the consultation, but the stark reality is that members of the public from my constituency and beyond were given an inadequate chance to properly scrutinise the proposals and properly comment on the concerns regarding air quality that they had originally raised.
I want to provide some clear examples of the Environment Agency’s failings to be open and transparent throughout this process. The campaign team experienced significant delays in respect of freedom of information requests. Under the terms of the FOI regulations, the Environment Agency is required to reply within 20 working days. The worst example experienced by the campaign team was a delay of four months. That is completely unacceptable. It resulted in a lost opportunity to carry out proper scrutiny of the applicant’s information.
Here is a second example: there were missing documents that were not made available to the public at the start of the second consultation. Copies of all five of the EA’s notices sent to the applicant were omitted, meaning that the public could see only the answers from the applicant and not the questions that the Environment Agency asked. Those missing documents were made available only when I and the campaign team asked for them.
To be frank, that is shoddy work from a regulatory body, and I cannot express my frustration and anger enough. I am exceptionally pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who I know cares deeply about ensuring that our regulatory bodies do their job properly, is listening and is able to take on board the challenges that we have faced. My constituents deserve much better
The potential impact on people’s health of the incineration process cannot be ignored. In a 10-page submission that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and I jointly submitted to the Environment Agency, we raised the following concerns: issues with the inadequate and unfair consultation process itself; concerns about noise and odour pollution; and concerns about the fact that the incinerator is built at the bottom of a valley, the  resultant challenges of the topography, and the public health implications of emissions as a result of temperature or cloud inversions.
We also raised concerns that pollution modelling used unreliable data. I will give an example. The Environment Agency used data from the Bingley weather station. The Bingley weather station is located 262 metres above sea level, whereas the proposed Aire valley incinerator is situated roughly 85 metres above sea level. That discrepancy in evaluation means that the estimated dispersal of emissions from the incinerator is based on information from a weather station in a significantly raised position, where wind speeds behave much differently from those experienced at the bottom of the Aire valley.
We raised concerns about the proposed monitoring of emissions and any enforcement action that is likely to follow. We raised issues with the stack height. The incinerator is proposed to have a stack height—a chimney height—of only 60 metres, yet other comparable incinerators have stacks far higher, where emissions are better dispersed.
I could continue—the list goes on—but perhaps the most significant of our concerns is the impact the incinerator will have on human health via air quality. The Minister will be aware that, back in 2018 and 2019, Public Health England funded a study to examine emissions of particulate matter from incinerators and their impact on human health. The study found that, while emissions of particulate matter from waste incinerators are low and often make a small contribution to ambient background levels, they make a contribution nevertheless. Of course, there are many variables and influencing factors, such as the stack height, the surrounding topography, the feedstock, the microclimate—again, the list goes on.
Residents are rightly concerned—I share their concerns—about the impact on air quality, not just from the incinerator itself but from the increased traffic flows bringing waste to the site. Unbelievably, in questioning the decision making for the award of the environmental permit, I was told by the Environment Agency that it could consider only the emissions from the incinerator itself, not those from the increased traffic flow from the heavy vehicles that will bring the waste to the site, because that was a planning matter, which Labour-run Bradford Council had already considered and deemed to be acceptable.
It is my strong view that my constituents have been let down: failed by our Labour-run local authority, which claims to have its residents’ best interests at heart, but also let down by the Environment Agency, a regulatory body that, in my view, carried out a half-hearted attempt through its consultation process. May I use this opportunity to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do all in her power to take a close look at the Environment Agency’s involvement, to hold it to account and to ensure that it fulfils its statutory duty and that its involvement in such consultations takes place in a proper manner?
I want to use the last few moments to talk about the role of incineration in general, and about the circular economy. The circular economy means prioritising, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and regarding waste as something that can be turned into a resource. Many of us in this place and beyond will be familiar with the waste hierarchy, which gives top priority to preventing waste in the first place and, when waste is created, gives preference to preparing it  for reuse, then for recycling, then for recovery and last of all for disposal, whether to landfill or waste incineration. As the Minister will be well aware, I believe that all Government policy should be based on this hierarchy.
I am pleased to see the extensive work that has gone into the Environment Bill, led by my hon. Friend the Minister, and also into the Government’s resource and waste strategy. I was proud to sit on the Environment Bill Committee and see that piece of legislation work its way through this House. I look forward to getting involved in more of the debates as it comes back to this Chamber. It is my firm view that if we are serious about investing in our circular economic model, we must, as a country, incentivise reuse, recovery and recycling practices. Of course I appreciate that some waste simply cannot fall into those categories, but we must do all we can to discourage incineration and landfill practices as the preferred option.
That brings me on to the introduction of an incineration tax, which is something that I have raised in this place before, and I commend this option. Unlike incineration, landfill is already subject to a tax, and an incineration tax could work in a similar way. It would be a fiscal de-incentivisation to incineration and could lead to more innovation in other practices, such as recycling. Of course, an incineration tax is not new or radical. Other countries have already adopted it, including the Netherlands, Sweden and Austria.
We owe it to the next generation to ensure that the planet is left safe and in a much better place than we found it. However, building more incinerators such as the Aire valley incinerator, the one in my constituency, goes against everything we are trying to achieve. I know that many other colleagues from across the House are of the same view. I suspect that it will be a couple of years before the Aire valley incinerator is built and becomes operational, and I dread the date, but I wish to reassure all residents in my constituency that the campaign to stop it is by no means over. I will do all I can to ensure that their voice is heard, and to ensure that the operator, and those overseeing it—Labour-run Bradford Council and the Environment Agency—are watched like a hawk. I will ensure that their actions are scrutinised every step of the way.

Rebecca Pow: It is so good, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. My goodness, that was a fiery presentation—I am not joking—on a hot topic. I expect nothing less from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), because he has spoken to me many times about this issue, and I know that he has very much wanted to bring it to our attention in the Chamber. He has certainly done that in respect of the proposal for an incinerator in the Aire valley in his constituency, which would deal with 148,000 tonnes of commercial, industrial and municipal waste and is expected to be operational in a few years’ time.
Before going into detail on the particular proposal,  I start by saying that my views have not changed at all. I have spoken about this many times in other debates, as has my hon. Friend, and the Government’s attention remains firmly on exactly what he talked about towards  the end of his eloquent speech. Our intention is to focus on reducing, recycling, reusing and, indeed, cutting down on all waste and moving to a circular economy. This is absolutely the direction of travel, and we have targets in place to enable us to do that now.
We have a raft of targets. We have a target to increase overall recycling rates to 65% by 2035. We have a target for zero avoidable waste by 2050. We have a target of 10% of waste or less going to landfill by 2035. There are a lot of measures in the Environment Bill that will move us in that direction. I have just been before the Environmental Audit Committee to talk about one of the packaging reforms, the deposit return scheme, which will contribute towards driving us in the direction of cutting waste. I am pleased to say that today we launched the consultation, which is a big moment in moving us in the right direction.
For clarity, I reiterate that it was the Labour-run City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council that granted planning permission back in 2017. The council sends 58.4% of its collected and managed waste for incineration, which is interesting.
I will now talk about the Aire valley permission, but I also want to set out the steps that the Environment Agency took following that planning permission to grant its permits. In September 2018, Endless Energy Ltd applied to the Environment Agency for an environmental permit to operate an energy-from-waste site on Aire Valley Road. The agency’s technical assessment of the application began shortly after receiving the application, and it held its first public consultation between 1 November and 13 December 2018. Some 2,000 comments were received during that consultation. The agency then consulted further on its draft decision between 8 June and 12 August 2020, and it received 1,600 comments.
I take the points that my hon. Friend made pretty vociferously that there were some documents missing in the first consultation—I will not beat about the bush on that. It was an admin error, and the EA duly reacted, put them in and extended the consultation. I think he will agree that that did happen.
The agency then considered all the comments received during both the consultation stages, and the final decision document was produced and is publicly available. It describes how the EA considered the issues raised. The main concern, which my hon. Friend highlighted, was that the site is in a valley that regularly experiences temperature inversions, resulting in misty conditions and a perception that emissions from the process will be trapped in that mist.
The Environment Agency verified the modelling of air emissions provided by the applicant to ensure it included an appropriate variety of weather conditions, including temperature inversions in the valley. The agency also undertook its own detailed modelling of air emissions, and it is satisfied that the concerns are unfounded and the installation will not have a significant impact on air quality—the EA has to follow due process and do the modelling.
The EA has issued information to explain its decision making, as well as to explain how Endless Energy’s application was assessed and the factors taken into account. The agency’s decision document sets out the details and the reasons for proposing the conditions  on the permit. As a result of this thorough process, the  EA determined that the applicant provided sufficient information for it to be satisfied that the facility will not compromise air quality limits or standards and will meet the relevant environmental requirements for this type of facility. The Environment Agency therefore decided on 8 December 2020 to issue the permit to allow Endless Energy to operate the facility as described in the application and in the additional information provided.
It should be noted that the permit sets out the legally binding conditions that Endless Energy Ltd must follow to protect the air quality, the groundwater and the surface water, and to ensure the safe storage, management and disposal of waste. As with all energy from waste, the use of abatement systems is required to keep emissions and air pollutants within strict limits set down in legislation. That includes oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen chloride, metal smoke and dioxins.
The permit also include conditions to minimise the risk of accidents, noise, odour and so forth, and as part of its regulatory regime the EA carries out regular inspections. The facility will be subjected to those, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will hold the EA’s feet to the fire to ensure that those things are done and the due process is followed. It is essential that people feel that the due process is being followed and they are safe. I assure him that regular monitoring will be carried out. If the agency identifies that an energy-from-waste plant breaches any of its permit conditions, appropriate enforcement actions will be taken. That may be a warning, first of all, for a minor breach. Enforcement notices can be put in place or, indeed, a prosecution as and if necessary.
My hon. Friend raised concerns about the planning process. Of course, planning decisions are a matter for the local planning authority, which in this case is the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council. The national planning policy framework sets out the planning policies for England and how they should be applied, including consideration for such things as traffic and the build-up of transport issues. He rightly made his views about the planning situation very clear—I will not comment on it—as did my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who made some similar comments about his own constituency.
We take air quality extremely seriously as a Government, and we are fully committed to reducing air pollution. The World Health Organisation has praised our UK clean air strategy as an example for the rest of the world to follow. Indeed, we are pouring £3.8 billion into cleaning up our air, and we have an enormous strategy  of bringing in clean air zones across the country to keep people healthy, because this is a major health issue. Our landmark Environment Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley knows, is bringing through ambitious new air quality targets to help reduce the public health impacts.
I must point out that energy-from-waste plants in England are regulated, as I said, by the EA, and they must comply with the strict limits set down in legislation in terms of air quality. Public Health England’s position remains that modern, well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators do not have a significant impact on air quality. In addition, they must use what we call, technically, best available techniques—that is the kit and equipment that they have to put in to meet environmental standards and reinforce the levels of environmental protection. That is really important, and those techniques have recently been reviewed.
I reiterate my message at the beginning that, on a wider note, the Government are absolutely committed to cutting down waste. We will reduce, recycle and re-use. We are meeting all the targets that I outlined at the beginning. We are bringing through the measures that we need. What will happen is exactly what my hon. Friend suggests: there will be less waste. Producers will be responsible for all the waste and packaging that they put on the market. They will be responsible for its whole lifecycle and the full net costs. They will not want to have to pay for it to end up somewhere else, such as incineration, which is, bar landfill, right at the end of our waste hierarchy.
The ambition is to have less and less waste going to incineration. There will always be some that will have to go to the lower ends of the waste hierarchy, but the key is that the incinerators have to be safe, regulated, and well run. In a perfect world, not only would they generate energy from waste, but we would capture all the other heat that they create. They should be geared up for that in future.
The tax matter that my hon. Friend raised is really for Her Majesty’s Treasury. The 2018 Budget set out the Government’s long-term ambition to minimise the amount of waste going to incineration or landfill, but if the policies do not deliver that cut in waste the introduction of a tax on incineration will be considered. I think I will end there. It was a terrifically vociferous speech. He made his case unbelievably clearly, but hopefully the message that I am giving is that we are cutting down on waste, and we certainly take such things as air quality extremely seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.